Preamble

The House met at hall past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BLYTH HARBOUR BILL [LORDS] (By Order)

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

PLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS] (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the City of London (Various Powers) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time;
That no further Fees shall he charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.— [The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [LORDS]

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office no later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.

Ordered,
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;

Ordered,
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so

deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first time and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);

Ordered,
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

Ordered,
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;

Ordered,
That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)" were omitted;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman ql Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

RIVER HUMBER (BURCOM OUTFALL) BILL [LORDS]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the River Humber (Burcom Outfall) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That, no petitions against the Bill having been presented within the time limited within the present Session, no Petitioners shall be heard before any Committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the Committee;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.— [The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,


That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

Ordered
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);

Ordered,
That all Petitions relating to the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

Ordered,
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;

Ordered,
That in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the works "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against bill)" were omitted;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

To be communicated to the Lords, and their concurrence desired thereto.

FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [21 October],
That the Promoters of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session.
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table with the New Clause as added on Consideration of the Bill as amended.
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (STANSTED) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [21 October],
That the Promoters of the British Railways (Stansted) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on thich the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Area Tourist Boards

Mr. Pollock: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to review the structure of area tourist boards and their relationship to other public bodies with similar promotional responsibilities; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): My right hon. and learned Friend does not have any plans to undertake such a review. We consider that area tourist boards remain the most suitable mechanism for involving the private sector and local authorities in local tourism.

Mr. Pollock: I welcome my hon. Friend back to Scotland and wish him well in his new duties.
Does my hon. Friend agree that tourism is one of the most important aspects of the Scottish rural economy and that, for it to be fully effective, there must be the fullest possible co-operation between local authorities, Government agencies and the trade? Does he further agree that the welcome extension of the Highlands and Islands Development Board area to embrace parts of my constituency provides an opportunity for a reappraisal by all concerned of how best to achieve effective promotional and marketing opportunities?

Mr. Lang: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks and agree with him about the importance of tourism in the Scottish economy. I also agree with him about the importance of collaboration and co-operation between the


various bodies at national and area level. I am sure that my hon. Friend will find that the HIDB, the Scottish Development Agency and the Scottish Tourist Board are ready to co-operate locally to facilitate the advance of tourism in the Moray area.

Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister urgently ask his right hon. and learned Friend to consider the massive job and tourist implications of yesterday's announcement that Glasgow is to be the cultural capital of Europe? For that reason, will he persuade the Minister for the Arts to go back on the statement that there will be no Government funding? We require major Government funding if the proposal is to do a job for the economy and the culture of Scotland and of Britain.

Mr. Lang: I share the hon. Gentleman's pleasure at Glasgow's success in winning the contest. Progress in Glasgow during the past few years has been quite remarkable and I am sure that it will fulfil the role satisfactorily. I feel sure that the availability of funding from the private sector and from local authorities will be adequate to maintain the momentum that they are now developing.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a likely area for the provision of new jobs in the future? To assist the industry, will he maintain the high Government expenditure on roads, particularly on the A75, where there have been unfortunate accidents lately, and do what he can to help the industry over the rating of caravans and caravan sites?

Mr. Lang: I, too, attach importance to the A75. Our record on increasing expenditure on roads is remarkable, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree. That is reflected in the high quality of roads in Scotland available to the tourist industry and others.

Mr. Kirkwood: I wholeheartedly agree with the Minister's statement that the area tourist boards play an important and valuable role in the promotion of tourism in Scotland. If that is the case, will he confirm that the Scottish Office block grant to the Scottish Tourist Board for onward transmission to local tourist boards has not kept pace with inflation during the past three years? Many area tourist boards depend heavily on that subvention to promote their activities.

Mr. Lang: The Scottish Tourist Board certainly has an important role to play, but an important role must also be played locally. The enthusiasm, local enterprise and initiative in area tourist boards are the factors that can generate the most effective tourism for each area in Scotland.

New Towns (Housing)

Mr. Norman Hogg: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on general housing provision in the new towns; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Robin Cook: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has reached a decision on the moratorium on house building in new towns in the light of recent submissions of the development corporations.

Mr. Lang: Representations have been received from each of the new town development corporations, from Fife

regional council and from the forum of Scottish local authorities with new towns. We shall take full account of all representations before reaching decisions on the policy review.

Mr. Hogg: Does the Minister accept that there is a need for some urgency in reaching a swift conclusion on this matter and that he should respond positively to the representations that were made to him on Friday 3 October when he met the forum of Scottish local authorities with new towns? Surely today is an opportunity to make such a statement. Failing that, can a statement be made in the next few days so that the local authorities with new towns will know where they are going?

Mr. Lang: I indeed had a most useful meeting with the representatives of the Scottish local authorities with new towns and with the hon. Members for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie). As I made clear to them, the considerations affecting these matters must also take account of the wider implications for the public expenditure survey. However, an announcement will be made as soon as possible.

Mr. Cook: Will the Minister recognise that this housing ban is causing particular hardship to a young community, such as Livingston, where every year 400 young couples marry and seek a home from a development corporation which is not allowed to build houses for them? Does he accept that all five local authorities representing new towns and all five Members of Parliament have called for the ban to be lifted, and that they are now supported by all five development corporations which were appointed by him and his colleagues? As nobody representing the new towns, whether elected or non-elected, now supports the ban, what possible mandate can the Minister claim for sticking to it?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman suggests that there is unity, and to some extent there may be. Nevertheless, there are differences between the levels of need as assessed by the new town corporations and by the local authorities. The demographic factor to which the hon. Gentleman refers was also brought out in the SLANT report and it is certainly to be taken into account. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that in Livingston private house ownership doubled within six years.

Mr. Allan Stewart: May I add my personal warm congratulations to my hon. Friend on his new responsibilities? My hon. Friend referred to the increase in house ownership in Livingston. Does he agree that the five Scottish new towns generally have an excellent record on selling their housing to sitting tenants? Can he give the House an indication of the overall position for the other new towns?

Mr. Lang: I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome. He is absolutely right about the importance of increasing private ownership in the new towns. There has been a substantial increase over the years, but ownership is still at 34 per cent., which is rather below the Scottish average. However, he might like to know that the completion rates for private building have doubled during the past four years.

Mr. Lambie: May I add my representations to those of my two colleagues and ask that the decision on lifting the moratorium be given as quickly as possible? Is the Minister


aware that in the new town of Irvine not only are second generation families unable to be rehoused, but small businesses cannot attract key workers for the development of those businesses because the priority list is now much longer than the list of most of the other district council tenants?

Mr. Lang: I accept the importance that the hon. Gentleman attaches to the need to be able to continue to attract industry to the new towns. It is also worth mentioning that this year the HRA capital allocation to Cunninghame district council is 60 per cent. higher than it was two years ago.

Mr. Henderson: Has the rate of purchase of new town development corporation houses by sitting tenants been matched by other local authorities?

Mr. Lang: I cannot give my hon. Friend those figures now, but I shall write to him.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Does the Minister appreciate that the sale of housing does not meet the needs of many thousands of people? How long will it be before he once again permits the building of houses for rent?

Mr. Lang: I accept that it is necessary to achieve balanced communities and a proper integration between general and special housing needs. That is one reason why we give close consideration to the reports that we have received.

Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister assure us that the new clause rushed into the Housing and Planning Bill in another place by the Department of the Environment to allow housing in new towns to be privatised will not cover Scotland? If it does not, will he give an assurance that there will be no equivalent legislation in Scotland?

Mr. Lang: The policy on this matter has not changed.

Inverclyde Initiative

Dr. Godman: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Development Agency concerning the Inverclyde Initiative; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I discussed the work of the initiative with representatives of the Scottish Development Agency when I visited the offices of the initiative in Greenock in July. Accepting the difficulties the initiative faces, I am satisfied that sound progress is being made.

Dr. Godman: Has not the time arrived to increase the cash injection into the Inverclyde Initiative? If increased funds were made available to the manpower and venture training group, unemployed people, of whom there are thousands in Inverclyde, could be helped to set up businesses and, perhaps more importantly, to develop community enterprises. Recently, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry gave similar help to those shipbuilding communities which were badly hit by redundancies. Could not the same be done for Inverclyde?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has overlooked the major progress that has already been made. Plans for a £20 million redevelopment of the customs house quay site in Greenock, which could lead to the creation of 700 jobs, are well advanced. In addition, the Scottish Development

Agency has acquired land in Port Glasgow for the construction of a new factory. Given that there was a five-year programme for the initiative to achieve about 2,000 jobs, it is encouraging that already projects are in hand which could achieve almost half of that figure.

Mrs. McCurley: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that congratulations are in order for Mr. Donald Draffan and his colleagues involved with the Inverclyde Initiative on the amazing amount of work that has been accomplished so far? Does he agree that a great deal more might have been achieved had it not been for the carping criticisms by the local Labour party in that area?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those involved with the initiative believe that major progress is being made. I had useful discussions with them when I met members of the Inverclyde Initiative.
They did not put to me proposals similar to those put by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). They believe that they are making major progress in the way that I have described.

Mr. Ron Brown: Recognising that the Edinburgh Evening News and Lothian regional council have revealed that Leith has the highest unemployment on the east coast of Scotland, would it not be appropriate to give more resources to the Scottish Development Agency to expand the Leith project, so putting people back to work and doing the things which are essential to the community? Would that not be an appropriate use of public money?

Mr. Rifkind: I am not certain which part of Inverclyde the hon. Gentleman represents. Although I appreciate that Leith has serious unemployment problems, they come nowhere near to the problems of Inverclyde. That is why the Government have set up the Inverclyde Initiative.

Labour Statistics

Mr. George Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the increase in unemployment in north Lanarkshire since May 1979.

Mr. Lang: Between May 1979 and September 1986 unemployment rose from 15,531 in the then north Lanarkshire travel-to-work area to 33,659 in the new Lanarkshire travel-to-work area, but because of changes in the travel-to-work area boundaries and in the method of count, these figures are not strictly comparable.

Mr. Robertson: When will the Minister realise the real human misery that lies behind those statistics of failure? What will people make of the contrast between the bland public relations nonsense from New St. Andrews House and the Government's view of the future for Strathclyde and north Lanarkshire contained in the report to the European development fund, which states that there is
"little possibility of sufficient expansion in the economy to reduce unemployment significantly in the next few years." Is it not time that the Scottish people realised that we need not new Ministers at the Scottish Office but a new Government?

Mr. Lang: The Government take the problem of unemployment seriously. That is why we are dedicating almost £3 billion to employment and training measures. That is why almost five times as many Scots as in 1979 qualify for such measures. The document to which the hon. Gentleman refers was a working document based on


figures compiled from submissions from local and other public authorities. A similar document was produced in 1982, and it is highly irresponsible to make the use of it that has been made in certain quarters. This is against the interests of Scotland.

Mr. James Hamilton: Following the two announcements made in my constituency about Caterpillar and Honeywell, which are not labour intensive firms, but have at least allowed a consolidation of jobs, will the Minister recognise that in the steel industry, particularly in my constituency in the Clydesdale tube works, morale is at a very low level after a large number of redundancies? There could be further redundancies, which will further aggravate the position. Is the Minister aware that in the Strathclyde region, where we have 14·1 per cent. unemployment, this will be catastrophic? Is the Minister thinking of doing something about it?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is aware that we are already doing a great deal about it, as I have already said. I am glad that he welcomes the announcement made by Caterpillar of the £62 million investment in its Uddingston factory, securing the jobs of some 1,200 employees, and the Honeywell extension opened by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State the other day. Within Lanarkshire there are 4,600 community programme places and about 6,000 youth training places. There is evidence of our commitment to helping to solve the unemployment problem.

Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that none of the £30 million investment — announced by the Secretary of State during the recess—in Ravenscraig is new money, but merely for the relining of an existing blast furnace and for coal injection, and the attempt by the Secretary of State to suggest that there is any security there for the future is fallacious? Is he further aware that the male unemployment rate in Craigneuk in the ward that contains Ravenscraig is already 36 per cent.? Is he aware that there is no alternative but an entirely new industrial initiative, for the the future of Lanarkshire?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman's gloom is the last thing that Scotland needs at the moment. It was not my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State who made the announcement by BSC. I suspect that it is only the Labour party that would put £30 million into something that it intended to close.

Mr. Maclennan: In an earlier answer the Minister appeared to be casting doubt on the reliability of the figures that the Government have used to support bids for regional assistance from the Community. Does he accept the accuracy of these assumptions, or not?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government do not make employment forecasts. This was a working document compiled as the basis for negotiation for European regional development fund grants, from which Scotland has benefited over the past decade to the tune of around £616 million. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is a worthless exercise to submit a detailed document to secure these continuing grants for the benefit of Scotland, he is wrong.

Mr. Ewing: We congratulate the Minister on his appointment, and are immensely relieved that he will not be long in the job. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Mr. Hamilton) spoke about

Ravenscraig. Why is the Scottish Office, in the regional development document, talking consistently about continuing job losses in the steel industry in Scotland—which is obviously the official view of the Scottish Office — when we get double standards from Ministers deceiving the work force at Motherwell into believing that they are in favour of developing the plant? When will the Minister make proposals for investment in the coke ovens, which would be a clear sign of the future security of the Ravenscraig steel plant?

Mr. Lang: Again, I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman might welcome the substantial investment already committed by BSC to Ravenscraig. The hon. Gentleman knows that we do not make employment forecasts. We can rely more substantially on the fact that some 50,000 new jobs have been created in Scotland in the past three years. That is a higher rate of job creation than has been achieved either in Germany or Japan.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of Slate for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest unemployment figures for Scotland with special reference to youth and long-term unemployment.

Mr. Rifkind: The full range of employment and training measures is being brought to bear on the problem. The YTS in particular is showing successes, with over 38,000 participants in Scotland in 1986–87 expected to reach a target of 51,000 for the year as a whole. Under the restart programme over 26,000 long-term unemployed have received assistance towards finding a job or training.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, despite the fiddling of unemployment figures no fewer than 16 times since 1979, the basic brutality is that unemployment is going up and up? There is no indication whatever that they are likely to come down between now and the general election, even if the Government change their policies—which they have no intention of doing. Does the Minister not recognise that 17 people in the dole queue are chasing each vacant job? Is that the image that the Government seek to portray, the image of a caring Government?

Mr. Rilkind: If the hon. Gentleman was prepared to use his normal compassionate and flexible attitude in considering these matters, he would acknowledge that the situation in Scotland bears good comparison with the situation in many other parts of the developed industrial world. I remind him that in Italy 54 per cent. of the adult population are in work. In Germany the figure is 59 per cent. and in France it is 60 per cent. In Scotland no less than 63 per cent. of the adult population are in work. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to give an objective assessment of employment in Scotland, he should explain why Scotland has more of its adult population in work than any other comparable European country.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ask the civil servants in his Department to estimate how much unemployment in Scotland would be increased if the Opposition had their way and we saw the cancellation of Trident, the destruction of nuclear power generation in Scotland, with the resulting costs for industry, and the rating of agricultural land and buildings?


It is widely believed that those factors would add some 20,000 people to the dole queue. Does he agree that the Opposition are hypocritical on this as on everything else?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right. Quite apart from the Opposition's defence policy leaving Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom defenceless, it would result in severe damage to the employment prospects in a number of parts of Scotland, especially parts of the west of Scotland which depend on defence-related jobs. The Opposition have not even begun to come to terms with the employment implications of their foolish policies.

Mr. Martin: Unemployment in Scotland is terrible. The redundancies in the railway workshops in my constituency mean that in some streets not one young boy or girl has a proper job. The only thing offered to them is the youth training scheme by which young people are being exploited. Will the Minister take action to provide proper jobs in my community?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman has made the most disgraceful remark that I have heard for a long time—

Mr. Martin: I will get the evidence. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows it.

Mr. Rifkind: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that of those in Scotland who complete youth training schemes more than 50 per cent. go straight into full-time employment and that a further 10 per cent. go into further training—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is exploitation he should discuss it with the youngsters who have got jobs through youth training schemes.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the SSEB has estimated that the Labour party's nuclear energy policy could increase electricity prices in Scotland by up to 25 per cent.? Is there any better recipe for wiping out manufacturing industry?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. Not only would such an increase in electricity prices be extremely unpopular with the wider public, but it would also have a devastating effect upon the ability of our industry to compete internationally. That factor gives rise to great anxiety.

Mr. Ernie Ross: What involvement has the Secretary of State had with his colleagues in the Department of Employment in the awarding of approved training organisation status under the new two-year YTS scheme? In my constituency young people involved in the scheme and their parents are worried about the lack of reviews and the lack of continuous assessment by many of those companies. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman look at this problem to ensure that companies that are given approved training organisation status have the structure and the facilities to back up the claims that are made?

Mr. Rifkind: Naturally, we shall look very carefully at any suggestion that they are unable to respond and I shall ensure that any information the hon. Gentleman wishes to draw to my attention is properly looked at.

Mr. Eadie: Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware, since he has called for

objectivity, that there is a feeling abroad in Scotland that, politically, his party has written off Scotland, and vice versa. Is he not concerned about this, particularly when one listens to some of the speeches of his Prime Minister? Unemployment in Scotland, however much the right hon. and learned Gentleman may try to wriggle today, is an absolute disgrace, and something must be done about it.

Mr. Rifkind: Given that unemployment is indeed at an unacceptably high level, the unemployment percentage in Scotland, nevertheless, is lower than it is in several parts of England. It is lower than in Wales. It is also lower than in Northern Ireland. It is false to suggest that Scotland has a particular problem that is unique in the United Kingdom. The simple fact is that Scotland's relative position with regard to unemployment is more favourable now than it was in 1979, compared with the other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with the view that has been expressed in the United States and Japan that the future increase in employment throughout the developed world is almost certain to come from the service sector and that an undue preoccupation, if not obsession, with manufacturing will not help future employment? Will he therefore agree that the main policy thrust should be to seek to take advantage of the service sector, not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom? Will he confirm that this will be the policy of his Department?

Mr. Rifkind: I do not agree entirely with what my hon. Friend has said. While I believe that he is undoubtedly correct that many jobs are coming and will continue to come from the service sector, and while it is also correct that some of the older, traditional industries cannot expect to offer the same employment opportunities in the future as in the past, there is evidence to suggest that a large number of small businesses are being created in the manufacturing sector that will be able to produce important employment opportunities both in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Dewar: I take the right hon. and learned Gentleman back to his Government's application for assistance under the regional development fund. Does he seriously agree with his junior colleague who suggested that it was highly irresponsible for either the Opposition or anybody else to take an interest in what clearly was a considered judgment and prediction by the Department of Trade and Industry? Will the Secretary of State say whether he accepts the quite clear prediction that there will be no significant reduction in unemployment in Strathclyde and in most of Scotland in the year 1990?

Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman has said, in putting forward its proposals to the European Commission the DTI seriously considered the case that needs to be put to create the maximum opportunities for regional investment in the various parts of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that we are talking about 17 volumes of evidence and that that part of it which refers to Scotland covers some 200 pages. If, in seeking to acquire regional funds for Scotland, the hon. Gentleman were to put a submission to Brussels which concentrated purely on what had already been achieved and on the remarkable achievements in many areas of employment, he would have very little prospect of a


continuance of the major funds that we have obtained from the European Community. No fewer than £600 million of regional funds has been acquired from the European Community to be spent in Scotland. It is on that basis that that report ought to be accepted.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman can escape for a moment from the mass of verbiage in which he has sought to bury that question, can he tell us whether the DTI was seeking to mislead the Commission, or whether it was telling the truth?

Mr. Rifkind: I am always happy to accept advice from the right hon. Gentleman on questions of verbiage. We were seeking to highlight those aspects of the situation in the United Kingdom that would maximise our prospects for achieving—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am trying to get on so that we can reach Question 14.

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well how the European Commission operates. He knows exactly the criteria which would best achieve maximum regional funds for Scotland as well as the United Kingdom as a whole.

Scottish Trades Union Council

Mr. David Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the general council of the Scottish Trades Union Congress; what subjects were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Rifkind: I last met members of the General Council of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on 20 June. Subjects discussed included shipbuilding, the steel and coal industries and the British Rail Engineering Ltd. workshops at Springburn.

Mr. Marshall: In view of that reply, does the Secretary of State intend to meet the STUC again in the near future, and will he then discuss the findings and recommendations of the Main committee report on teachers' pay and conditions of service? Will he make a statement to the House now as to his intentions regarding the cost of implementing that report?

Mr. Rifkind: I have not received any further request from the STUC for such a meeting. With regard to the Main inquiry, the Government, the Education Institute of Scotland and others involved in educational matters are giving serious and deep consideration to all the recommendations of the Main report. The EIS, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, has not come to any conclusion on these matters and neither have the Government. However, as soon as we are in a position to indicate our findings we shall make a statement to the House.

Mr. Pollock: When my right hon. and learned Friend next meets the general council, will he draw its attention to the highly successful job creation work of local enterprise trusts? Is he aware that last Monday at the annual general meeting of the Moray local enterprise trust it was announced that several jobs had been created or saved? [Interruption.] A significant number of jobs in the Moray area were saved or created at the remarkably low figure of £124 per job. In the light of that, will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that the Scottish

Development Agency can continue to give full funding assistance, as it has done in the past year, of some £15,000 towards that excellent work?

Mr. Rifkind: The enterprise trusts are yet another initiative by the Government to help employment prospects and to achieve maximum co-operation between local business men and others. I pay tribute to what has already been achieved in that area.

Mr. Steel: How will the Secretary of State explain to the STUC that the Government are unable to give it a forecast of unemployment in Scotland and are unable to give the House such a forecast but are able to tell the European Commission that the Government's estimate is 3311,000 in the year 1990? Is that to be regarded as lining on the begging bowl, or is it a real estimate?

Mr. Rifkind: If the right hon. Gentleman had read the report rather than a press release he would have seen that it makes it clear that the Government are making no forecast about employment, because we follow the same practice as previous Labour Governments and never make forecasts of that kind.

Mr. Dewar: I accept the Secretary of State's point about the need to look carefully at the Main recommendations. We all agree that the teachers, as well as the Government, must look at the package as a whole. We certainly do not want a rushed decision perhaps turning on one or two of the more complicated elements in an interlocking and important package. However, will the Secretary of State accept that the Government have their part to play? is it not essential that the Government make it clear at an early stage that they will be prepared to fund their share of any settlement that is reached on the basis of Main and that they will also be prepared to look constructively and positively at the other parts of the Main package that require funding of staffing levels, which are set out or referred to in the Main proposals? Is it not also important that the Secretary of State makes it clear that local authorities, which will no doubt have to bear some part of the burden, should not find themselves caught under the guideline provision and paying penalties for honouring an agreement that may be reached on the basis of the report? Does he not accept that it is essential that teachers know where the Government stand, because that must be an important factor when they come to strike the final balance?

Mr. Rifkind: I have not the slightest doubt that the members of the EIS and other teachers' unions will need to know the Government's views on the recommendations of the Main report when they come to a conclusion on this matter.
The Main inquiry must be studied by the Government, local authorities and teachers, because the public and parents in Scotland attach great importance to the outcome being sensible and reasonable in terms of education in Scotland as well as being acceptable in relation to the overall issues.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say that there is a later question on this matter, and I am trying to get there.

Scottish Special Housing Association (Report)

Mr. Hugh Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has received from the Housing


Corporation in Scotland on the policy review report of the Scottish Special Housing Association; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): My right hon. and learned Friend has received no advice from the Housing Corporation. The chairman of the corporation and the Scottish Special Housing Association have, however, offered full co-operation on follow-up action.

Mr. Brown: It is so long since I tabled the question that I have almost forgotten why.
At first glance this seems to be more of a cosmetic approach than one of substance. Will the Housing Corporation consult housing associations now, before they make a submission to the Secretary of State, or will it be when the consultative document comes out in the spring, presumably just before a general election?

Mr. Ancram: Before we get to the consultation document, I have asked the SSHA for a progress report on the policy review. I have asked the association and the Housing Corporation about a joint liaison group to examine matters of mutual interest. I think that that is in the interests of housing in Scotland.
The consultation document on a potential merger will be issued next spring. It will be drawn up by the Government in consultation with the SSHA and the Housing Corporation. We should wait to see what the document says and then have a public debate on it. I know that the hon. Gentleman supports housing associations. This Government have underlined their commitment to housing associations by spending on average over £100 million a year in terms of capital. That compares well with the £90 million spent over the total period of the last Labour Government.

Construction Industry

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the prospects for the remainder of the current financial year for the construction industry in Scotland; what contribution he expects the oil-related sector to make in this context; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): Current assessments suggest that the construction industry's output this financial year will be similar to that in 1985 and thus maintain the substantial improvement made over the past four years or so.

Mr. Kennedy: Does the Minister recognise that the oil-related sector of the construction industry is essential to the highlands of Scotland and that recently the Kishorn yard has gone into receivership? Is he aware that, using the Government's unemployment statistics, the development department for the Highlands region has calculated that when the receiver has seen over the finishing of the current contract in the Skye and Wester Ross travel-to-work area unemployment within the next two months will rise from 17 to 23 per cent.? Does the Minister recognise the devastating impact that that will have on the communities there, in addition to the deepening gloom in Easter Ross? What do the Government propose to do?

Mr. MacKay: Fabrication yards are regarded as being part of manufacturing industry, not of the construction

industry. We share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the news from the Kishorn yard. We are watching the situation closely to see what develops. We hope that the receiver can achieve a satisfactory outcome.

Mr. Douglas: Does the Minister accept that in answer to a question tabled some time ago the Secretary of State requested the oil companies in the oil-related sector to take a long-term view? Are the present redundancies being announced in Aberdeen and elsewhere a result of the Secretary of State's overtures to the oil companies, or can we expect a continuing diminution of oil-related employment in Scotland, particularly in the light of the diminution of seafaring employment referred to in the excellent document submitted by the National Union of Seamen? Perhaps the Minister can give us his view when he has had time to consider.

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Member, who knows a great deal about these matters, knows that the oil industry's perception of oil prices in the 1990s and beyond will determine investment decisions and, hence, employment in those industries. Forecasting has always been a difficult business and in relation to the price of oil it must be the most difficult business of all. A wide range of estimates have been quoted. Future oil industry investment decisions will depend upon the perception of what is likely to happen.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not the case that the present output of the construction industry is at record levels and that there has been a dramatic increase in expenditure for the construction of roads and on the Health Service?

Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend is right. Since 1981 total construction output has grown by about 74½ per cent., with substantially faster growth in sectors such as private housebuilding, private commercial work and repair and maintenance work. My hon. Friend knows of my past involvement in the Health Service. I can confirm that a vigorous building programme is going on in the Health Service, and that will continue in future.

Mr. Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the utterly unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's response, I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Labour Statistics

Mr. MacKenzie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the current level of employment in the west of Scotland.

Mr. Rifkind: Most of Strathclyde benefits from development area status, and I am encouraged by the 18,100 new jobs associated with offers of new regional development grant in Strathclyde in the year to end September. In addition, several area initiatives are currently under way in the region.

Mr. MacKenzie: Is the Secretary of State aware that, while he might be quite content with the figures in Strathclyde, no one else is? My colleagues and I have sat in this Chamber for the past three quarters of an hour listening to many slick answers on unemployment. Not one answer will give any comfort to the thousands of people in Scotland who are unemployed. As for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answers on the regional development fund application, I am bound to say that I


have never heard such nonsense and rubbish in the time I have been a Member of Parliament. The documents were submitted by the DTI with a voice from the Secretary of State for Scotland. If there is to be only a plateau in the unemployment rate over the next decade, surely to goodness the Secretary of State should be man enough to stand up and admit that the Government have made mistakes in policy and that something must be done now to change it.

Mr. Rifkind: I am not sure what comfort the unemployed will have received from the right hon. Gentleman's question. There was not one constructive item in his question, despite his protests to the contrary. I am not saying to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are content with the level of unemployment in Strathclyde. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that when he was in government unemployment in Strathclyde went up dramatically. He knows perfectly well that it has continued to do so since he ceased to be a Minister. The right hon. Gentleman might be more impressive if he were prepared to admit the failings of the Government of which he was a member.

Mr. Foulkes: Does the Secretary of State remember that he and I spent part of the first day of the Labour party conference inside a disused brick kiln in Waterside in the Doon Valley? That area has the highest level of unemployment, not just in Strathclyde and Scotland, but in the whole of Europe. Does the Secretary of State recall the constructive proposals that were put to him by Cadet, the enterprise trust, the local authority and the Dalmellington trust? Has he had time to consider the proposals? Can he say something positive today? If not, when will he be able to say something positive to give some hope to the people of the Doon Valley?

Mr. Rifkind: I do recall that memorable experience in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I have a sense of guilt at keeping him away from his Labour party conference. I found the visit extremely helpful. Many suggestions were made, especially regarding the role of the Scottish Development Agency in the area represented by the hon. Gentleman. I have had an opportunity to have informal discussions with the agency on some of the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Hunterston

Mr. Lambie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet the councillors of Cunninghame district council to discuss the future of Hunterston.

Mr. Ancram: The district council has asked for such a meeting, in a letter it sent on 8 October, about a proposed oil rig repair facility. We are considering that request.

Mr. Lambie: I am disappointed with the reply. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the port of Hunterston is stagnating, with the Clyde Port Authority, the SSEB, British Steel and the Hunterston company all involved in the development? Is it not about time that the port of Hunterston was split from the Clyde Port Authority and a Hunterston development corporation was set up to organise the future development of the port and the industrial areas, involving organisations such as the Scottish Development Agency, Strathclyde regional council and Cunninghame district council?

Mr. Ancram: I am interested in what I can only presume is Labour party policy for that area. The reason for taking time to consider whether a meeting is necessary is that consideration is being given to a planning application relating to the area. That is obviously a matter that we shall have to take into context in considering whether a meeting is either necessary or desirable. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the Hunterston site is of particular value because of its deep-water access. It is also an area of high amenity that should be developed only for industries that can exploit its particular advantages and bring major benefits to the entire Scottish economy.

Job Creation (Glasgow)

Mr. Craigen: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what initiatives he has in mind to increase employment in the Glasgow area.

Mr. Lang: We aim to improve employment prospects in Glasgow as elsewhere by our policy of encouraging the build-up of a strong, competitive economy. Investment by the Scottish Development Agency and the full range of the Manpower Services Commission's employment and training measures will further help to create jobs in Glasgow.

Mr. Craigen: I asked the Minister what new initiatives he had, and it appears that he has brought forward none. With 77,000 out of jobs in Glasgow, will he have a word with his hon. Friend in the housing department to ascertain whether there are ways in which extra employment can be generated in the city by taking on new construction projects? Will the Minister ensure that Glasgow is getting its fair share of Government purchasing?

Mr. Lang: There are a number of specific initiatives that I could mention to the hon. Gentleman — for example, the GEAR project, whereby £281 million of Government money has generated a further £173 million of private money. The garden festival in 1988 will be a tremendous boost to Glasgow, and work on that project is already well advanced. Glasgow is benefiting enormously from the urban aid programme and receives about a quarter of the Scottish Development Agency's project programme moneys.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

Prosecution Policy

Mr. Henderson: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will make an official visit to the procurator fiscal at Cupar to discuss prosecution policy.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): I hope to visit Cupar in the near future and will be glad to discuss with him any points that he raises.

Mr. Henderson: I am glad to hear that from my hon. and learned Friend. Will he discuss the merits, and possibly some of the difficulties, of extending the principle of fixed penalties for a wider variety of motoring offences?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Perhaps I should emphasise that the fixed penalty system that was introduced in England and Wales and involves the police is not a system that is currently in operation in Scotland.


There is a fixed penalty scheme for moving traffic offences involving the procurator fiscal service, which is working extremely well and going a considerable way towards alleviating pressure on the courts. Fiscals have reported that there has been some criticism of the form of notice sent out to those who are offered the opportunity of a fixed penalty. I am examining this to ensure that the notice is properly understandable by members of the public.

Mr. Wallace: If the Solicitor-General were to go to Cupar, would he discuss what policy the procurator fiscal should follow? Should he, through absence of the sheriff-clerk, find that the sheriff court does not operate, will he be able to assure the procurator fiscal in Cupar that that court will not have the same fate as Kirkwall sheriff court in the last week in August, when, because of public expenditure cuts, the so-called Government of law and order could not stand the court keeping open?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is more interested in this matter than in shipping and terminals in Orkney and Shetland, a topic which was raised earlier this afternoon. If he wants to raise with me a specific issue relating to the cover of the sheriff clerks in any court in his constituency, I hope that he will let me know. We want to ensure that throughout Scotland criminal trials and civil cases can come before the courts to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.

Procurator Fiscal (Kilmarnock)

Mr. McKelvey: asked the Solicitor-General for Scotland when he expects to meet the procurator fiscal at Kilmarnock to discuss staffing levels.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I have no plans to meet the procurator fiscal at Kilmarnock to discuss staffing levels, which are kept under review by the Crown Agent, who has, in the first instance, responsibility for those matters.

Mr. McKelvey: If the Solicitor-General has an opportunity to visit Kilmarnock, I am sure that he will enjoy it. Should he meet the procurator fiscal and discuss staffing levels with him, he will find that they are almost up to the required level, but that the accommodation is somewhat overcrowded. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman carry to Kilmarnock and the procurator fiscal the good news that some money will be provided for the refurbishment of the old Kilmarnock court so that accommodation can be made available in that building for the procurator fiscal's staff?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: As the hon. Gentleman says, the staff in Kilmarnock are one short, which is expected to be made up in the very near future. As he will also appreciate, I am aware that there are also accommodation difficulties in Kilmarnock, particularly in relation to the sheriff court, but I think he will readily accept that what is more important is that we ensure that there is proper representation for the procurator fiscal in Kilmarnock and that he has adequate staff. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that at present that is so.

Mr. Speaker: We now go back to question No. 14. Sir Hector Monro.

Mr. McKelvey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I see that I have the next question—No. 40.

Mr. Speaker: That question is to the Paymaster General, but today the questions are to the Solicitor-General for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. McKelvey: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow me to deal with it afterwards.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Teachers' Salaries

Sir Hector Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on teachers' salaries and conditions of service.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The report of the committee of inquiry under the chairmanship of Sir Peter Main was published on 2 October. I am giving the report close and urgent consideration and have urged the teachers and their employers to do likewise.

Sir Hector Monro: Contrary to what the Order Paper says, my constituency is Dumfries, not Dunfermline.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this is a matter of the highest importance and that the Main committee has given the Government, local authorities and teachers an excellent opportunity for resolving the problem of pay and conditions of service? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would add to the harmony of the negotiations if all the teachers returned to normal duties?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct to say that many teachers are refusing to involve themselves in curriculum development and parental liaison, which are matters identified in the Main report as crucial to the role of the modern teacher. That is a regrettable factor. One hopes very much that teachers will return to full, normal activity that is compatible with the professional status they enjoy.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I understand the need for the Secretary of State to study the report closely, but would he be prepared to deny at this stage the belief that he will expect the increased pay to be funded by the wholesale closure of rural schools?

Mr. Rifkind: I know of no suggestion that the funding of the recommendations in the Main report should come about through the closure of rural schools. I noted that in the Main report the committee mentioned that some closures of schools would be justified, given the fall in pupil numbers, but neither the committee nor the Government have argued that the funding of teachers' pay should be brought about by the closure of schools. There are arguments that in certain areas certain schools are no longer required in the interests of the children's education opportunities, but that is a different matter.

Mr. Milian: In answer to an earlier question the Secretary of State implied that he would make a statement soon. Is he aware that it is no use him welcoming the Main report unless he gives the commitment that he will meet his share of the salary increases recommended in the report through the rate support grant system, and also by


increasing the guidelines correspondingly, otherwise we shall have the absurd situation of the local authorities being penalised for implementing the salary recommendations?

Mr. Rifkind: When the Government give their conclusions on the Main report, that statement will cover the financial aspects, including whether the Government's own contribution should be in a form recommended by the Main committee. The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment further until we have concluded our consideration of the report.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: When my right hon. and learned Friend announces his plans for education in Scotland, having considered the Main committee recommendations, will he make it clear whether the city technology centre initiative announced by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will also be open to people in Scotland, and whether Scots will benefit from the principle of direct funding of schools in the state sector?

Mr. Rifkind: We are considering whether the initiative announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State might be useful in Scotland, but we have not yet come to a conclusion.

Mr. Bruce: Will the Secretary of State recognise that until he makes clear his position on the funding of the proposed settlement from the Main committee it will be difficult, if not impossible, to get normal working going and obtain a settlement? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman at least tell us that he will come to the House as quickly as possible with a firm and clear statement to that effect?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should be the first to acknowledge that, once the Main inquiry was established earlier this year, there was no justification for teachers not returning to normal working. If the hon. Gentleman believes that it was right to cause continuing disruption in the schools even while an independent inquiry was considering the matter, he should consult parents in his constituency to find out whether they agree with him.

Mr. O'Neill: Will the Secretary of State reconsider the response that he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian), when he spoke about the Government's responsibilities? Many of us are anxious about the responsibilities that will fall on local government in respect of the guidelines. In his statement, will the Secretary of State take account of the implications of any wage rises to be funded by local authorities in respect of the guidelines that they have to meet at his diktat?

Mr. Rifkind: There is no question but that if the Main committee's recommendations were accepted they would place an additional burden on central Government and on local authorities. Ratepayers would have to take that burden on their shoulders. Thus, responsibilities would lie with both local authorities and central Government as a result of the Main committee's recommendations. That is why it is sensible to look at such matters in detail instead of reaching a premature conclusion.

Mr. Strang: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that teachers are justifiably concerned about some aspects of the document, including, not least, the anti-trade union bias that seems to pervade parts of the report? In those circumstances, it is crucial that not only the Secretary of

State but the Cabinet should be prepared to adopt a wholly different approach to Scottish education. It would be a disaster if the Government failed to secure the negotiated settlement with the teachers that would enable us to reverse the decline in our schools.

Mr. Rifkind: I am rather puzzled, because the hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that the Government should accept the Main report, while saying that it has an anti-trade union bias. It would be interesting to hear his explanation.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that the Main report also raises some important long-term questions, including the proposal for an independent review body for pay and conditions? Can he outline the likely time scale for the Government's response to those recommendations?

Mr. Rifkind: I accept that the Government's view of the committee's starred recommendations should be available to the unions before they and their members reach a conclusion about what their assessment should be. It would clearly be relevant for teachers in Scotland to take that consideration into account when determining their attitude towards the Main committee.

Mr. Dewar: I shall be brief, as to some extent my point has been met in the past 30 seconds. Does the Secretary of State accept that the largest teaching union and others who are affected are now going through a set timetable for consulting their members? For example, I believe that the EIS has a special delegate conference at the beginning of November and will then ballot. It is desirable and, indeed, essential, that the Government should make a statement. I accept that the decision has big implications, but the statement should be made before that special delegate conference takes place.

Mr. Rifkind: I agree that it would be desirable to make a statement. However, it is open to the EIS to determine its timetable in the light of the information that it feels it needs to know before deciding on the recommendation to make to its members.

Mr. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does it arise out of the questions?

Mr. Ewing: It arises directly out of questions. It is important that Ministers should make accurate statements to the House, but I believe that the Secretary of State may have inadvertently misled the House. In response to a question from the hon. Member for Moray (Mr Pollock) he claimed that the enterprise trust movement in Scotland was a Government initiative. He must know that that is simply not accurate. The enterprise trust movement was born out of Scottish Business in the Community. The worst thing that could happen to Scottish Business in the Community and the enterprise trust movement—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has gone well beyond the original question.

Mr. Rifkind: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is correct, but it is equally correct to point out that, through the Scottish Development Agency, the Government have taken the initiative in giving full support to that enterprise

British Rail (Subsidy)

Mr. Robert Hughes: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the proposed reduction in Government subsidy to British Rail and the consequent cuts in services and increases in rail fares.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Moore): The objectives which I set the board yesterday build on the success of those which my predecessor set in 1983. They have reduced the dependence of the railway on the taxpayer by over 25 per cent.— a saving of more than £200 million. This is a considerable achievement on which BR and its staff are to be congratulated. It has not brought any of the swingeing fares increases or massive service cuts which Jeremiahs on the Opposition Benches forecast then; nor will we see them now.
The new objectives ask for a continuation of this improvement in cost effectiveness. Increasing efficiency will mean that costs, and the need for grant, will fall. But we are also requiring a higher standard of service. Over the past three years many services have benefited from new rolling stock, refurbished stations and other investment. There are, however, other services where both we and the board agree that quality is not good enough. The Government have approved over £900 million of new investment and there is more to come. But we must get away from the idea that the only way to improve the railway is to throw more taxpayers' money at it.
Alarmist suggestions of massive fare increases are totally unfounded and show a remarkable lack of confidence in British Rail's ability to succeed. Fare levels are for the board, but — I stress "but" — the grant savings I am seeking from Network SouthEast and Provincial require a reduction of only 8 per cent. over three years. The remainder comes from the progress Inter City is making towards profitability. Most of the grant saving on NSE and Provincial will come from improved efficiency. But where quality improves, as I think clearly all of us want to see, it is reasonable for the passenger to pay a little more. But there will be no massive fares increase; nor will there be overall cuts in service. Our commitment to supporting the non-commercial railway and securing a modern efficient railway for the country is clear.

Mr. Hughes: I thank the Secretary of State for that lengthy reply, but I am bound to say that he would have improved his reputation in the House if he had made a statement yesterday instead of being compelled to answer a private notice question.
It is clear that the cut of 25 per cent. in the public service obligation in the next three years is a continuation of the Government's vindictiveness against British Rail. As the right hon. Gentleman's letter to Sir Robert Reid is clearly the result of prior discussions, he must know exactly how much fares will increase as a result of these cuts. He says that they will not be swingeing, but how much will fares increase in London and the south-east? Will it be 25 per cent. or more, as has been estimated in the newspapers? How much will fares on provincial services increase? Again, will it be 25 per cent. or more? The House has a right to answers.
The Secretary of State said that he wanted better standards. Why, therefore, did he say in his letter to Sir Robert Reid:
I value your assurance that you would consult me if unforeseen circumstances should at any time make it necessary to consider measures that would materially undermine quality."?
Did the chairman of British Rail tell the right hon. Gentleman that his current proposals could well lead to an undermining of quality? Why else was that put in the letter? There can be no other explanation except that he was warned.
The Secretary of State, in his letter to Sir Robert Reid, said:
we are not asking for a programme of major route closures.
For what is he asking? Will he give an assurance that no branch lines will be closed? If he will not give that assurance in the clearest terms, will he tell us which lines he intends to close? Why is he determined that British Rail must hive off to private enterprise every potentially commercially profitable part of its business—on railway stations, the up-keep of its business and its property?
Why, on the one hand, does the right hon. Gentleman's policy in general seem to be in favour of competition? Why, on the other hand, is he cosseting his pet friends, the new private bus operators, by erecting barriers to British Rail's competing against them where they think that that is necessary? That is clearly set out in the right hon. Gentleman's letter to Sir Robert Reid.
Why is the right hon. Gentleman determined that British Rail should subsidise private operators rather than invest in their own rolling stock to attract passengers? The whole package which he has presented today, and which he outlined in his letter to Sir Robert Reid, will drive passengers away from the railways; it will certainly not attract them. In the major cities it will increase congestion and pollution. The right hon. Gentleman really must answer the questions rather than replying to a private notice question in a way that shows that he has not thought about the results of his policy.

Mr. Moore: I shall deal first with the hon. Gentleman's last point, because quite the reverse of his suggestion is the truth. During the past three years the staff and management of British Rail have made the excellent achievement of reducing their grant, while there has been an increase in traffic of 3 per cent.
The cut in grant over the past three years has produced not a swingeing or massive increase in fares but, for the overall passenger railway, an increase of 7 per cent. in real terms. In addition, there are 22 more stations than there were in 1983 as well as grant aid being down by 25 per cent.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to estimate fares increases. As I tried to point out, the overall expectation of grant reduction within NSE and Provincial over three years is expected to be about 8 per cent. We trust that efficiency gains will ensure that there will be no need for any fares increases. However, we have encouraged BR to enhance the quality of its service and to add to its investment in quality service, so we should regard it as reasonable if that produced a minor and modest increase. However, the record of the past three years shows the nonsense of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that this proposal will mean massive fares increases. To put the matter in perspective, the £50 million saving anticipated for NSE and Provincial should be compared with a cost for the whole area of £1·4 billion.
The hon. Gentleman asked why I had especially referred to quality in my letter to the BR chairman. We regard so highly the need to enhance quality that if the chairman found at any stage that there was some difficulty in achieving that I would clearly wish to be advised.
The hon. Gentleman asked about major closures. Exactly the same words were used in the objectives for 1983, and I have nothing further to add to that. I could continue, but I have the distinct feeling, Mr. Speaker, that you would like me to stop at this point.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members will note from the Order Paper reference to an affirmative order, so the matter w ill fall for debate in due course. As this is a private notice question, it will not be possible for me to call all hon. Members who wish to take part. However, I shall now call Mr. Toby Jessel.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Will my right hon. Friend consider what can be done to ensure that British Rail fares are equitable for residents in outer south London who already, through their rates, have to subsidise residents of other parts of London who are able to make greater use of the London Transport underground?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend knows that I, too, have a constituency that has the blessing and good fortune to have a British Rail station, but not a tube station. I recognise the point that my hon. Friend is making. If he carefully considers my statement, he will realise that we want enhanced quality, enhanced service and a better and more efficient railway for the customers whom he and I see also as constituents.

Dr. John Marek: As a result of this intensely depressing anti-rail statement, which will cause worse time-keeping and more overcrowding, will the Secretary of State promise and guarantee that the following lines in Wales will not close—the Cambrian coast line, the mid-Wales line, the central Wales line, the line from Shrewsbury to Wrexham and the line from Llandudno junction to Blaenau Ffestiniog?

Mr. Moore: Line recommendations and advice are clearly matters for British Rail, but I should have thought that the record of maintaining services during the past three years would be sufficient vindication. I regard the statement as a confirmation of the extraordinary ability of a first-class railroad to attain its objectives and to improve on them. We should be complimenting the staff and management rather than being so critical.

Mr. Robert Adley: A fair-minded person would pay tribute to the Government for the investment levels in British Rail during the past few years. It is curmudgeonly and silly to do otherwise. Perhaps I might tackle my right hon. Friend on the London and south-east network, however, which does not affect my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that rail services in the Greater London area and probably in other cities are an essential part of the urban infrastructure, just as roads are, and that it is unreasonable and unrealistic ever to expect such services to pay? Will he further confirm that the price for not funding them through the taxpayer is more congestion, more pollution and more stagnation? Will he therefore give a clear commitment indefinitely that the Government accept their responsibility in this regard?

Mr. Moore: I am conscious of my hon. Friend's support and that of the Government for an efficient and successful railway that serves customers and taxpayers. I know that my hon. Friend is aware of the massive investment programme, but I remind him that, during the past three years, above and beyond the enhancement and modernisation of stations, we have added, in the area about which he is concerned, the Bournemouth to Weymouth electrification programme, the Waterloo resignalling programme and the Snow Hill tunnel and electric multiple unit programmes. I recognise what my hon. Friend is saying about the London commuter and railroad area. It is an essential part of the nation's fabric. It should be enhanced, improved and made as commercial and effective as possible.

Mr. John Cartwright: Does the Secretary of State agree that talk of enhanced quality of service on Network SouthEast will be regarded as pie in the sky by many London commuters when they still suffer sudden cancellations, delays and dirty, overcrowded trains? Does he agree that many are reluctant commuters, and that they have been forced to depend on British Rail because jobs have gone from their areas? What estimate has he made of the impact of a fare increase persuading still more commuters to crowd on to London's already congested roads?

Mr. Moore: The hon. Member is compounding the error that others have made by assuming that there must be a fare increase.

Mr. Cartwright: No fare increase?

Mr. Moore: No. I said that the hon. Member is assuming that BR cannot succeed through efficiency gains. The hon. Gentleman is ignoring my point, as are others who do not want enhanced customer service or better opportunities to travel by rail. He fails to understand our attempt to establish proper quality standards. BR has not succeeded in all respects, but, during the past three years, it has come within 0.5 per cent. of the objectives that it was given for quality standards. We are trying to enhance and increase that. I should have thought that that is what the hon. Member would want us to do, while encouraging more investment to improve quality to attract more customers.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, over the years, BR has made many promises, very few of which have been kept? Is he aware that many of us will believe in the second coming before we believe further promises on this subject? Most of us have a great and abiding faith in the word of Ministers of the Crown. Will he promise that, with the changes that he wants to bring about with yet another saving, the fare structure will not go above the rate of inflation? If it did, it would be damaging to commuters and to inter-city services. Can we all recognise that the country's future depends on a good, stable and growing rail system and not driving traffic on the roads?

Mr. Moore: I have difficulty finding my way between the second coming and an excessive faith in Ministers, but I accept my hon. Friend's intent. He is trying to do precisely what the Government are trying to do — to ensure that there is an efficient, effective and commercial


rail service and that railway grant for socially necessary services is delivered as efficiently as possible. Those are clearly the Government's objectives.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a limit to how much the railway industry through staff reductions can be expected to contribute to these reductions? Does he agree that this further three-year programme which he has given Sir Robert Reid is almost impossible to carry out without damaging the railways or increasing the fares, particularly in the south-east? What exactly does the Secretary of State mean by saying
we are not asking for a programme of major route closures?
What closures does he envisage, because in his letter he also refers to bus provision for rail services in the provincial sector? What exactly does he mean by saying:
In the light of these considerations, I want you to make a significant reduction in the … requirement
for PSO grant in the south-east region? Does that not mean massive increases in charges?
The Secretary of State paid great tribute to the non-supported services and mentioned the sums spent on intercity services, freight services, Freightliner, Travellers' Fare and so on. Is not his concern to make those services effective in order to move towards privatising them rather than merely to make them more effective?

Mr. Moore: No. My concern is precisely the concern that I expressed in the three-year objectives. Those are the targets, the aims and the goals, and there is nothing beyond them. I respect the hon. Gentleman. I know that he is Chairman of the Transport Select Committee and I know of his history in the railway industry. I hope that he will remember the past three years, as we should do if we are committed to a successful railway industry. If what he is now saying is true, the railways would not have been able to achieve the objectives in grant reductions, nor to add to the rail facilities and to those who travel on the railways, nor to enhance services. I expect and hope to see the same results from these objectives for the next three years.

Mr. Peter Fry: In view of my right hon. Friend's expressed hope in his letter to Sir Robert Reid that the private sector would play a greater part in British Rail's activities, and in view of his statement this afternoon, will he now consider ways in which the existing track could be opened up to other operators, thereby introducing on rail the type of competition which the Government hold so dear in the whole of public transport?

Mr. Moore: For those who have not had the opportunity to read yesterday's full written parliamentary reply, I should remind my hon. Friend of precisely what I said about the limits within the three-year objectives in terms of private participation. I said:
Further steps to secure that others from outside the nationalised industry can play their part in the upkeep of the railway and its equipment, the supply of its needs, the development of its property, and the exploitation of the commercial potential of stations will all be welcome as ways of improving Railway finances." — [Official Report, 21 October 1986; Vol. 102, c. 774.]
I would seek to have that participation to assist the success of our railways.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Can the Secretary of State say whether and to what extent the

reduction in subsidy will affect British Rail's approach to the much needed rail link to Manchester International airport and the projected rail link to Stansted airport? Is he aware of how urgently the rail link to Manchester International airport is now needed in the interests of the north-west region as a whole?

Mr. Moore: I compliment the right hon. Gentleman on mentioning an issue in which we are all involved. It is not germane to these particular objectives—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Why?"] — because it comes within the context of the overall pattern and proposals of investment in British Rail. To that extent, the right hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members will know this Government's outstanding record on providing investment, which British Rail has acknowledged. I know the issue and that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are interested in it. I, too, am extremely interested in it and will certainly be giving it attention beyond the specific objectives that we are discussing today.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will my right hon. Friend pass to the chairman of British Rail the congratulations of many of us who notice a real improvement in British Rail? Nevertheless, will he also transmit the message to the chairman of British Rail that hundreds of thousands of people who commute into the capital city every day do so in completely unacceptable conditions of discomfort? Will he tell the chairman of British Rail that our constituents expect a real improvement in those standards?

Mr. Moore: I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks, and I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to join in them. British Rail is to be congratulated. We should remember that British Rail sees these objectives as tough but achievable. I shall ensure that the chairman of British Rail is aware, as I know he already is, that we are not satisfied with the quality and standards. That is why we are seeking to enhance them.
The presumption by some Opposition Members that by throwing taxpayers' money at something it will improve efficiency and standards is bizarre. The chairman of British Rail is aware of the points that have been made, but I will ensure that I personally talk to him on the subject.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Does the Secretary of State understand that, so far as the general public have been made aware, his policy and that of his Department has two objectives: first, to achieve more punctual and better services; and, secondly, to have less crowded trains? Does he understand that neither he nor history can guarantee the former and that the latter will arrive only by increasing fares and causing further congestion on the roads? Does he agree that, instead of listening to Bob Reid, he should listen to Mr. Public?

Mr. Moore: That is precisely what Sir Robert Reid, the board of British Rail and the Government are trying to do. We are trying to ensure that, on the one hand, we have an enhanced, efficient commercial railway and, on the other, that we allow the railway to continue to carry out its public service functions in areas where it is socially necessary, even if it is not commercial. Neither of those militates against those two objectives.

Mr. David Crouch: As one who sits on the south-east Back Benches, I hope that my right hon. Friend


will recognise that there is some sensitivity about what he is doing in Network SouthEast. I understand why he is seeking to cut the subsidy, but does he think it right that, in making such a cut, he is driving passengers off the railway on to the already congested roads of the southeast?

Mr. Moore: May I remind my hon. Friend of precisely what has happened in the past three years. While there has been a subsidy reduction of £200 million, passenger traffic on the railways has increased. My hon. Friend will recognise that we are not only interested in an efficient railway, but we have a legitimate interest in the rights and roles of the taxpayer. If we can deliver benefits to the taxpayer and benefits to the railway and its customers, we shall he doing our job.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Is the Minister aware that morale among railway employees today is at its lowest ebb? It is all very well for him to pay tribute to those employed by British Rail, but at the same time he is holding a dagger behind his back, intending to make more men and women redundant. Is he aware that his statement today has been heard time after time from successive Tory Secretaries of State for Transport? There is a limit to the efficiency programmes that can be carried out. Will the Secretary of State leave his office and talk to the men and women employed on British Rail, who have to do the job? They will tell him that they are trying to do the same as the Egyptians did—making more bricks with less straw.

Mr. Moore: I understand the emotion with which the hon. Gentleman makes his point. I have spent much of my life travelling on British Rail, and in the past few months I have spent a great deal of time travelling on British Rail, and I have not found the conditions that the hon. Gentleman describes. I found a recognition among British Rail staff that the Government have committed a massive investment and are committed to British Rail. As I said in my speech at the party conference, "We believe in British Rail". We do, but we want it to be efficient and effective and not such a large drag on the taxpayer.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend accept that some parts of the rail network will never be commercially viable, yet they form an integral part of the system? Is he aware that the entire rail network west of Plymouth—in Cornwall—is grant-aided and that any reduction in that system would work to the disadvantage, socially and economically, of the county of Cornwall?

Mr. Moore: I am conscious of the points made by my hon. Friend, and that is why I sought to make it clear that the Government recognise the need to maintain the socially necessary parts of the railway. As he rightly says, the provincial network is 75 per cent. grant-aided. To that extent, he will be conscious of the degree to which I have tried to correct the misapprehension which some may have. We are looking for an 8 per cent. reduction in grant for the whole of Network SouthEast and Provincial over three years, which is a modest target for efficiency gains.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: How can the right hon. Gentleman talk about seeking to improve the service and the railway system when he is cutting the subsidy? Is it not clear that in Western Germany, France, Italy and other European countries the railways are highly subsidised, and the people have a much better and more

efficient service than we have? The right hon. Gentleman might shake his head, but I often travel on those railways and they are much better and more efficient than our service, which has deteriorated, especially since this Government have been in office. The Minister is suggesting further cuts in the service and ways to make impossible the life of those who are trying to make it efficient. It is time that the Government changed their attitude, stopped their ideological nonsense, and put the interests of the people before those of people like the right hon. Gentleman who think that profit is the all-important god.

Mr. Moore: No. I think that the consumer, whether he is a customer on the railway or elsewhere, is the person with whom we should concern ourselves. Because I am so conscious of the needs of the consumer, I do not always assume that subsidy is the way in which the consumer is best served. However, we are talking about a railway system large parts of which will continue to be in need of support, and to that extent this set of objectives does not diminish that opportunity.

Mr. Heffer: Yes, it does.

Mr. Moore: I apologise if the hon. Member was not here earlier or inadvertently did not hear perfectly what I said, but I shall repeat that railway traffic went up over the past three years when the subsidy went down. I repeat that for the record in case, unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman's problem of interrupting from a sedentary position meant that he was unable to hear me the first time.

Sir Hector Monro: Will my right hon. Friend give credit to Scotrail for introducing new electric services. much improving track mileage and, in particular, improving safety? Can he assure me that the investment in track mileage in Scotland will continue?

Mr. Moore: Network SouthEast has the benefit of the former director of Scotrail now running it. I make that clear for those who wish to make an issue of it. I recognise the needs of Scotrail, and to the extent that investment proposals come forward, British Rail has not, throughout the system, found the Government in any difficulty in ensuring that such commercial investment is advanced.

Mr. David Marshall: Despite what the Secretary of State said, this policy inevitably means that provincial fares will increase. In view of the consultations, the Secretary of State must know by how much fares are expected to increase. Will he come clean and tell us, for example, by how much fares in Scotland will increase?

Mr. Moore: What I have said, and keep repeating, is that the figures in terms of the expectations through the objectives of the next three years assume a relatively modest reduction in grant of 8 per cent. throughout Network SouthEast and Provincial. That can he achieved over three years by efficiency gains, to the extent that Network SouthEast is expected to see enhanced investment for enhanced quality. However, if that cannot be achieved by efficiency gains, there could be a modest increase in fares. That will be up to British Rail.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a private notice question, not a statement, and I have already announced that there will be a debate about it. I shall call one Member from each


side and then we must move on. Without making any absolute commitment, I shall bear in mind those who have not been called when the debate is held.

Mr. Roger Gale: Is it not desirable to attract external investment in Network SouthEast? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend welcome the plan for £35 million of investment in a new rail terminal in Thanet? Does that not show tremendous confidence in the future of Port Ramsgate and British Rail in the face of the challenge posed by the Channel tunnel? Will he urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to allow that plan to proceed with all possible speed?

Mr. Moore: I congratulate my hon. Friend on seeking to get me to comment on an issue about which there is a planning inquiry. I recognise his legitimate interest in his constituency and the problems of Thanet and the way in which he has ardently argued for his constituents about what he sees as the problem of the Channel tunnel. I shall look at all rail investment in that area and any enhancement of it through as sympathetic eyes as I can.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Before the Minister rushes to congratulate the chairman on improvements in service, will he bear in mind the fact that in the recent past we in Wales have lost our sleeper service and now, in the new programme, there is no train after 6.30 in the evening from Swansea to London, and for most people there has been a deterioration in service? When he talks about efficiency savings, does that mean job losses? How many jobs does he expect to be lost on British Rail through so-called efficiency savings as a result of this announcement?

Mr. Moore: I do not believe, although it is a matter for British Rail, that this necessarily means changes in job levels. However, I did not rush to congratulate the chairman of British Rail about the standards. I have been a regular traveller on British Rail for many years. Some of us actually travel in other parts of the land. [Interruption.] I shall take as long as the hon. Gentleman wishes me to take, and until his hon. Friends can contain themselves. I also recognise that there is considerable discontent, and there has been for many years under many Governments, about the standards and quality of British Rail. What is different is that the Government, with the co-operation of British Rail, have sought to establish the quality standards that the railway seeks to achieve, and we shall seek to enhance those standards. We have no complacency about the present position.

Social Security Benefits (Uprating)

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the next uprating of social security benefits, which will take place in the week beginning 6 April 1987. This will be the third increase over 16 months, and covers the eight months from January to September 1986. It will complete the process of transition to the new timetable for benefit upratings which, in future, will take place annually in April. This will ensure that pensioners and other beneficiaries receive increases in their resources at the same time as most other financial changes take place.
The Government are pledged to increase pensions and other linked long-term benefits in line with the rise in prices. The retail price index published last Friday showed a rise between January and September 1986 of 2·1 per cent. Accordingly, the retirement pension for a married couple will rise from £61·95 to £63·25, an increase of £1·30 a week, and for a single person the pension will go up from £38·70 to £39·50, an increase of 80p per week. Widows' pensions and invalidity benefit will also be increased by the same percentage, as will public sector pensions. In the 16 months of the transitional period, the pension for a couple will have risen by £5·95 a week as a result of the three upratings and that for a single person by £3·70 a week.
I move on to benefits for families. The Government have made it clear that in considering the uprating of child benefit, account must be taken of priorities within the social security budget — every 10p increase costs over £50 million a year. We have decided that child benefit will go up from £7·10 to £7·25 a week, which is fully in line with the increase in prices. The Government also remain committed to the protection of low income families with children. The prescribed amounts in family income supplement will therefore rise by between 2·1 and 2·3 per cent., depending on the age of the child. This increase will ensure that low income working families with older children on FIS have seen the real value of their benefit increased by some 20 per cent. since 1978.
Over the eight-month period for this uprating, the retail price index, excluding housing costs, rose by 2 per cent., almost the same as for the RPI. The short-term rate of supplementary benefit will therefore increase from £48·40 for a couple to £49·35. There will be corresponding increases in the other scale rates. Additional requirements in the supplementary benefit scheme will be increased in line with appropriate elements of the retail price index. The cost of fuel and light has remained stable so that there will be no change in heating additions, but dietary additions will be increased— by lop a week for someone receiving the higher rate of addition.
As in July, I have decided to link the increase in the basic needs allowance for housing benefit to the cash increase in the basic retirement pension and in child benefit. This will ensure that virtually all pensioners do not lose housing benefit as a result of the increase in retirement pensions. It will also minimise the operational problems for local authorities next April. Full details of the increases in the housing benefit needs allowance and non-dependent deductions, together with the other benefit changes, are set out in a schedule which I have placed in the Vote Office.
I also propose to adjust the rent taper for relatively better off housing benefit recipients — those with incomes above the needs allowance—from 29 to 33 per cent. Those at supplementary benefit level and some way above it will not be affected. This change is subject to consultation with the relevant organisations. The amount of earned income which is ignored in the housing benefit calculation will he held steady for the second uprating in succession. This will ensure that those on low earnings will continue to benefit from last April's tax reductions.
Benefits payable to sick and disabled people, including sickness benefit, invalidity benefit, severe disablement allowance and invalid care allowance, will all rise by 2·1 per cent., as will attendance allowance and mobility allowance. 1 am also taking the opportunity to make a further beneficial change. Funeral expenses will be paid in respect of war pensioners who die as a result of their accepted disablement whether the funeral is arranged privately or by the War Pensioners' Welfare Service.
The House will shortly have an opportunity to debate these changes. I should add that they will apply in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the United Kingdom. The changes that I have announced will add over £700 million to the social security budget next year on top of the £420 million from the July uprating. Since 1978–79, spending on pensions has grown in real terms by over 25 per cent. at an additional cost of £4 billion a year. About £1·75 billion of this reflects an increase of 850,000 in the number of pensioners and the remainder represents a real improvement in the value of the pension. The new rates mean that the retirement pension has more than doubled in cash terms since November 1978 and that we have protected the position of other beneficiaries, including low income families with children, and the sick and disabled.

Mr. Michael Meacher: The 80p rise for pensioners is scandalous and miserly. Over the same period earnings have risen more than three times faster. There is to be no increase in heating additions and 80p is a paltry increase with which to face the winter. If I were to use the same crude techniques as the Secretary of State at the Tory party conference, I would throw over the Dispatch Box 10 pages of names of people who died as a direct result of hypothermia between January and April 1986. The statement by the Secretary of State means that pensioners will face the same roll call of premature death this winter.
Is the Secretary of State aware that if Labour's formula to uprate pensions in line with earnings had been used this year the pension increase would not have been 80p but over £2·50? Is he aware that every single Tory uprating, including this one, has pushed down pensioners' living standards in comparison with those in work? That means that this year, the seventh year in which the Government have been in office, a single pensioner receives £8 a week less and a married couple £12·75 a week less than they would receive under Labour's formula, if that were still operating. After seven years of Tory Government the single pension has fallen to precisely 20 per cent. of average earnings. Germany manages to afford a pension worth 50 per cent. of average earnings and France pays a pension of between 60 and 70 per cent.
The Secretary of State's decision not to uprate supplementary benefit in line with the RPI denies extra money to the poorest families. When the index for the supplementary benefit long-term rate rose last year more

than the index for the pension, he levelled it down to the pension increase on grounds of administrative cost. Now that its index has risen less than for the pension he refuses to level it up to the pension increase. Is that not grossly unfair to the poorest families about which the Government like to preen themselves on allegedly targeting help?
We welcome the 15p increase in child benefit, but in no way does it make up for the 35p real cut last November, nor does it even begin to compensate for the destruction of the school meals service which has taken place since 1980 and which is gathering pace each month. The further big and highly damaging increase in the rent taper is probably the most significant feature of the statement. It will sharply worsen the poverty trap for low-paid workers who are only just above the poverty line and will work directly against the Government's own restart scheme, new workers' scheme, enterprise allowance scheme and community scheme. Will the Secretary of State tell us the average losses that will be suffered by workers at such levels of earnings? Is it not nonsense for the Government to try to encourage unemployed people to come off the dole and then to undercut their incentives if they take low-paid work?
Overall, the statement will do nothing to reduce the numbers of people condemned to live in poverty. That poverty is a national disgrace and has doubled since 1979, according to the Government's own figures, to more than 10 million people. The statement offers not a penny more than the amount for which the Government are strictly legally liable, despite the fact that one in five British people now live within or on the margins of poverty. That is an official figure. It is also despite the fact that, as each year passes, the divisions between those in and those out of work become an indictment of a civilised society.

Mr. Fowler: The response by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was derisory and bizarre. He talked about heating additions for the coming winter, but he should have understood that the additions that I have announced are for next April. Surely the hon. Gentleman understands the purpose of my statement. The heating additions are payable from next April and in any event there has been no increase in fuel costs. That means that the hon. Gentleman's first point was entirely daft.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about pensioners. The increases that I have announced mean that pensions have doubled in cash terms since 1978–79. In everything that he said the hon. Gentleman ignored the fact that we have brought inflation under control. In 1976, 10 years ago, inflation was between 13 and 23 per cent. Under the last Labour Government inflation went up by 110 per cent. and no one suffered more from that than the pensioner. The trouble with the hon. Gentleman's plans or proposals, or whatever he wants to call them these days, is that no one seriously believes him any more, not even his right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor. The hon. Gentleman makes bogus promises and pledges which the public reject.
The changes that we propose in housing benefit mean that there will be an average weekly loss of 10p in the needs allowance for an owner-occupier and 40p for a tenant. There will be some weekly losses as a result of the taper changes and these will average between 47p and 56p.
As for the Rossi index, the hon. Gentleman is right that we did not uprate in line with the Rossi index in July. The difference between the Rossi index and the retail price index this time is only between 2 and 2·1 and it would


make a negligible difference to the uprating. The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that in this uprating we are spending an additional £700 million. The total expenditure on social security is now £43 billion a year, almost one-third of public spending. That shows our commitment to the beneficiaries of the social security system.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State accept that there is widespread failure to understand that over a period of 16 months pensions and other benefits will have been increased on no fewer than three occasions? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that as, inevitably, each of those three increases has been comparatively small, he should take every opportunity to repeat to the House and to the country a fact that I believe he mentioned today: that over that period not only has there been an increase in conformity with the inflation rate but that after next April we shall reach the position where pensioners and other social security recipients will have maintained the purchasing power of their incomes?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct that in the 16 months of the transitional period the pension for a married couple will have risen by £5·95 a week —almost £6—as a result of the three upratings, and that the pension for a single person will have risen by £3·70 a week. To take my hon. Friend's comparisons with the retail price index, between November 1978 and September 1986 the RPI increased by about 91·5 per cent. Pensions, without the increase that I have announced today, have already increased by 98·4 per cent. Including the changes, the increase is 102·5 per cent. In other words, the Government have fulfilled the pledge that they made at both elections to keep pensions in line with and above prices.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: It would help the House if the Secretary of State could tell us how many people are involved in the changes in the rent tapers and exactly how much that will save the Government in the housing benefit account. The Government's policy of price protecting pensions and benefits can be seen to be fair only if two things obtain: first, that the retail price index is an accurate measure across income spectrums. There is now wide evidence and anticipation of the fact that the retail price index does not accurately reflect the needs that have to be met by low income families. Secondly, over the period from 1 January to November 1986, earnings will have increased by 5 per cent., although the retail price index has increased by 2 per cent. At some stage there must surely be some reconciliation of the distance between these two figures.

Mr. Fowler: If we had used the pensioners price index — one of the alternative indexes which has been suggested — the increase would have been rather less than the one that I am announcing, because of the comparison with the retail price index. Many people have gone round this course, and the only sensible conclusion is that the RPI is the best comparison.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the needs allowance and the tapers. The effect of the needs allowance on public spending will be a saving of £23 million, and revenue forgone will amount to £17 million. As for the tapers, there will be a saving of about £28 million.

Mr. Roy Galley: There will be a warm welcome on these Benches for the fact that all benefits, including child benefit, have been increased in line with inflation, and more particularly for the substantial increase in pensions over the 16-month period during which these increases have been phased in. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is a more preferable policy to have a guaranteed increase in benefits to keep pace with inflation, in a period of low inflation, than to scatter confetti money, as the Opposition would prefer to do, which would do nothing except raise inflation and unemployment and decimate the savings of old people?

Mr. Fowler: I agree absolutely. As I have already said, 10 years ago, under the last Labour Government, inflation was running at between 13 and 23·5 per cent. Nobody suffered more than the pensioners from that lack of control over inflation. Frankly, it is banana republic economics to prefer high inflation so that uprating rates seem to be higher.

Mr. Frank Field: As child benefit always appears to be at its most vulnerable at the uprating period, I congratulate the Secretary of State on maintaining its real value since the last increase. However, as I am sure that he does not wish to become complacent on this front, will he remind the House that, had child benefit been maintained in real terms since 1979, it would today stand at £7·60 per child per week? Is the restoration of that cut a major objective of Government policy before the next general election?

Mr. Fowler: As I have always made clear, we shall consider the level of child benefit at each uprating. The hon. Gentleman has given the correct figures. In November 1985 we did not uprate child benefit fully. That is obviously known, and it was announced to the House. However, the hon. Gentleman forgets that at the same time we gave extra help through family income supplement, with the result that there is now a 20 per cent. real increase in family income supplement for families with older children and a 13 per cent. real increase for families with younger children. In other words, the Government have provided general support through child benefit, but they have provided above average support—above real increase support— for low income families.

Mr. Ian Gow: Does not the response of the Opposition to my right hon. Friend's statement show the astonishing degree to which the Opposition fail to understand that the greatest fear that pensioners have is the fear of inflation? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that after next April's uprating a pension with a higher purchasing power than ever before will be paid to a much larger number of pensioners than ever before? Finally, it is a measure of my right hon. Friend's achievement that the Government are able to announce pension increases which will make the purchasing power higher than when the "caring" Labour party was in office?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is also right that we are paying pensions to about 850,000 more pensioners than when we came into office. Before the Opposition lecture us too much, they might care to remember that this is almost precisely the 10th anniversary of their pensions fiddle, when they saved over £1 billion at the cost of the pensioners by changing the uprating method. That was perpetrated by the last Labour Government.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: The Secretary of State has assured us that there will be no increase in the allowances for fuel and light. Surely that implies that, had there been an increase in the cost of fuel and light, there would have been an increase in the allowances. Will the Secretary of State recognise the differential between the cost of fuel and light in Northern Ireland and its cost in England, Scotland and Wales and reflect it in the allowances that are made available to people in Northern Ireland, if he is to be consistent with the implication that he has accepted?

Mr. Fowler: I accept part of what the hon. Gentleman says about the general increase, but I should need to give very careful consideration to the matter before trying to set up regional indices of the kind that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but may I remind him that there remain a great number of families with dependent children among those on the lowest incomes and that, while the increases in family income supplement and one-parent benefit make a great contribution, they can be no substitute for child benefit. There are 7 million mothers and nearly 13 million children who will hear of this uprating with great relief.

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree with her that child benefit is the only recognition in the tax or social security system of the extra cost of having children and bringing them up. It is for that reason that we have fully uprated it at this uprating.

Mr. James Lamond: When the Minister says that because there has been no increase in fuel prices there will be no increase in fuel allowances, is he wiping from his memory and his conscience all the pain and suffering that went on in previous winters because of the inadequate allowances? Is he also wiping from his memory the fact that places in the north-west, such as my constituency, have many people who suffer from hypothermia? Is he not going to recognise that the present system is totally inadequate? Please, do not rest complacently on the fact that there has been no increase this year.

Mr. Fowler: The proposals on the severe weather allowance have been put to the Social Security Advisory Committee. I understand that it will be responding to them shortly. Obviously, we will lay regulations as soon as possible following that report. On the matter of additional requirements, I must point out that the Government are spending £400 million on heating additions. That is £140 million more in real terms than the previous Labour Government.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I congratulate my right hon. Friend most warmly on maintaining the real value of child benefit. May I remind him that that is in accordance with the decisive vote of the House in June when my motion on this subject was supported by 152 hon. Members and opposed by only three? Will he bear in mind, when settling his policy in regard to child benefit, that it is by far the most rational and humane way of keeping families from the necessity of applying for supplementary benefit? It is also the best way to maintain incentives to work for people with family responsibilities and low wages.

Mr. Fowler: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. I admire and pay tribute to the work that he has done for child benefit. I think that my hon. Friend will be satisfied with this uprating since we have given a full price uprating too.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: Why is the Secretary of State so reticent about his housing benefit cuts? Why will he not admit that this is the fourth time in three years that the rent taper has been cut? Why will he not admit that over 2 million households will lose and that this will further intensify the poverty trap? Why will he not admit that he is perpetuating a fiddle that was tried out earlier this year by failing to uprate the needs allowance by the traditional formula which has been used consistently since 1973 when it was introduced by a previous Conservative Government? By departing from that he is surreptitiously cutting the benefit to people.

Mr. Fowler: I did not think that I was being in the least reticent about the changes I have made in the needs allowance or the tapers. I have given the House the figures concerning that, the figures of average losses and the figures of public spending changes that are represented by it. I have to point out that when the Government came to office housing benefit spending was of the order of £1·5 billion and it is now £4·5 billion. Housing benefit now goes to one in three households and goes further up the income scale than any other income-related benefit.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Would my right hon. Friend remind the House of the cost of Labour's much beloved and, I would suggest, bogus formula? Would my right hon. Friend also remind the House how often the Labour Government manipulated and changed that formula when they had the task of managing it?

Mr. Fowler: On the last point, there is nothing I can add to what I have already said. The fact is—there are many Opposition Members who remember and are deeply ashamed—that 10 years ago the then Secretary of State for Social Services, Mrs. Castle, completely fiddled the system and robbed the pensioners of something over £1 billion. There is no doubt or question about that.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), appears to speak for the Labour party at times. However, the £5 and £8 increased cost which he is pledging would cost about £5·6 billion. To move towards the half average earnings to which he is now pledging the party would cost at least double that figure. That is why the public do not believe the pledges and promises that he is making.

Mr. Max Madden: At a time when the poverty crisis gripping this country is an all-time record, is not this statement thoroughly disgraceful? Does the Secretary of State not realise that pensioners, families in poverty and the long-term unemployed do not want to hear that Ministers care about them? They want more money. Will he understand that many of those people think that the retail price index does not in any way reflect their real needs? When is he going to give those people real increases so that their standard of living can increase in the same way as for those in full-time employment? Does he not accept that that is the problem which the statement does not address itself to?

Mr. Fowler: The people of this country, the pensioners and other social security beneficiaries want increased


benefits. The result of this uprating is that we are spending £700 million extra and the total social security spending is now £43 billion a year, which is about one third of all public spending. The pensioners in this country also want low inflation and they know that this is the only Government who will give them that because they can remember only too well what happened under the Labour Government.

Mr. Tony Favell: Will my right hon. Friend remind the Opposition that everything has to be paid for?

Mr. Fowler: That is certainly the case. One of the results of having public spending under control is the low inflation that this country has enjoyed.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Does the Secretary of State agree that those looking at this statement, especially the strictures on child benefit where it says that a 10p increase costs the country £50 million per year, would get a good insight into the values of the Government when we consider that for the sake of one week the Chancellor was prepared to borrow £4 billion?

Mr. Fowler: It is entirely fair and accurate to say that the cost of increasing child benefit is £50 million on the 10p increases. However, as I have said, we have increased child benefit fully in line with prices, which I hope is what the hon. Gentleman would support.

Mr. Robin Squire: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his fellow Ministers on the child benefit increase. It is in line with the early-day motion that I tabled some months ago, which was supported by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I also congratulate him on winning any battles that may have been involved. Does he not find it surprising that, on a benefit, which he and his predecessors in our party, in government or opposition, have long seen to be the prime way to assist in reducing family poverty, there should be any discussion about whether it should be increased by less than the rate of inflation, since any discussion should be on whether it should be increased by more than the rate of inflation?

Mr. Fowler: As my hon. Friend realises and understands, the decisions on child benefit are made at each uprating. We have made that position absolutely clear. I am glad that my hon. Friend shares my satisfaction that child benefit has been increased in this way.

Mr. Tim Yeo: I join in the congratulations being heaped on my right hon. Friend for preserving the real value of child benefit. May I suggest that, to avoid the type of debate that has taken place over recent upratings, he could persuade the Treasury to accept an index-linking of the child benefit in the same way as we now index-link the tax thresholds?

Mr. Fowler: I cannot do anything other than refer my hon. Friend to the reply I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire).

Mr. Allen McKay: While looking at housing benefits, will the Secretary of State consider withdrawing the rules of guidance that have been sent out recently to Department of Health and Social Security offices which have resulted in many of my pensioners who receive concessionary cash in lieu of fuel having their rent increased by between £3 and £4 per week?

Given that the concessionary allowance is awarded by reason of disability, infirmity and inability to handle fuel, that is a very cruel cut.

Mr. Fowler: I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's comment.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend recall that he was berated for not giving pensioners any more than he was legally obliged to give them? Since the last Labour Government did not even do that, does not it amount to a shabby attempt to mislead the country for Opposition Members to refer to the amount that would be paid under Labour's formula when the Labour Government did not even acknowledge their own formula?

Mr. Fowler: That is right. The Labour Government were not only totally unsuccessful in controlling inflation, but they perpetrated a number of frauds on the pensioners, the greatest being in 1976. They also ended the Christmas bonus. The public will remember that. I certainly do not believe that the public are remotely likely to accept or believe any of the promises made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher).

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Now that the Government have admitted in their submission on regional development to the European Community that their assumptions are based on unemployment in excess of 3 million by 1990 and, indeed, well into the 1990s, should not the Government now be reconsidering the position of people who have to live on benefits, because neither Government nor industry is capable of providing jobs?

Mr. Fowler: The changes that we are introducing in April 1988 as a result of the Social Security Act include provision for the unemployed in the income support arrangements. We should be seeking to bring unemployment down. That is what this Government want to do. One of the ways in which that can be done is to provide a context of low inflation. That is certainly what this Government are doing.

Mr. Peter Pike: Does the Secretary of State accept that the benefit increase, even if one regards it in the most favourable light. will mean that deprived people will at the best maintain a standstill position? Will the Secretary of State be able to ease his conscience next year in the Cabinet when it votes for a tax reduction to be introduced at the same time as it votes for the benefit increases? Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that a 1 p reduction in the standard rate of income tax is worth £1 billion more than the package that he announced today?

Mr. Fowler: Since 1978–79 social security spending has increased by 35 per cent. in real terms, so it is not immediately obvious how it has financed tax cuts. The point about tax cuts is that they take people on low incomes out of tax. I should have thought that that was what the hon. Gentleman would want.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Severe weather payments are very important to many pensioners in Scotland. That was demonstrated clearly early this year when thousands of payments were made following February's severe weather. Does the Secretary of State agree that any regulations relating to heating additions or severe weather payments must pay close regard to regional variations in weather conditions?

Mr. Fowler: We are awaiting the report from the Social Security Advisory Committee. We shall consider that and bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says about it, although I do not want to raise his hopes that we shall do as he wishes.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Does the Secretary of State accept that, although the pensioners of Eastbourne fret themselves to sleep worrying about inflation, the majority of pensioners in Newcastle will fret themselves to sleep worrying that two days from pension day they do not have a penny in their purse? Does he further accept that the grotesquely unfair increase that he announced today will be further nails in the coffin for many pensioners with hypothermia at the tail end of this winter? Is he aware that the only good thing that comes out of the statement is that it will result in further nails in this Government's coffin?

Mr. Fowler: That is a pretty pathetic comment. The hon. Gentleman does not even understand that the statement is being made for next April, at any event. Whether in Newcastle or in Eastbourne, the people will remember that the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a member presided over an inflation of 110 per cent. That was a disgrace.

Mr. Meacher: The Secretary of State has repeatedly referred to inflation and its effect on pensioners. In view of his constant references to 1976, will he acknowledge that what matters to pensioners is the real increase in pensions over a five-year period after taking account of inflation? Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the real post-inflation increase in the pension under Labour's last five years was 20 per cent., while in the last seven years of this Government it has increased in real terms by only 3 or 4 per cent.? That is the real difference between the parties and their treatment of pensioners. They did five times better under Labour.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman totally ignores that inflation at the levels over which his Government presided devastated the savings of millions of pensioners throughout the country. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of that record when lie was a Minister and should certainly not boast about it.

Following are the details:


Schedule of .main proposed changes in Social Security Benefit rales from the pay-day in week commencing 6 April 1987 (weekly rales unless otherwise shown)



Old rates 1986
New rates 1987


Attendance Allowance




higher rate
30·95
31·60


lower rate
20·65
21·10


Child Benefit—each child
7·10
7·25


Child's Special Allowance
8·05
8·05


Dependency Additions




Adult dependency additions For spouse or person looking after children, with:




retirement pension on own insurance, invalidity pension, unemployability supplement and. if beneficiary over pension age, unemployment benefit
23·25
23·75

Old rales 1986
New rates 1987


non-contributory retirement pension, invalid care and severe disablement allowance
13·90
14·20


sickness benefit if beneficiary over pension age
22·25
22·70


unemployment benefit:




standard rate
19·00
19·40


three-quarter rate
14·25
14·55


half rate
9·50
9·70


maternity allowance/sickness benefit standard rate
18·20
18·60


three-quarter rate
13·65
13·95


half rate
9·10
9·30


Note:Half and three-quarter rates for existing cases only.


Child dependency additions




For each child with:




retirement pension, widows benefit, invalidity benefit, invalid care and severe disablement allowance, higher rate industrial death benefit, unemployability supplement and sickness or unemployment benefit if beneficiary over pension age
8·05
8·05


Earnings Rules




Retirement pension
75·00
75·00


Invalid care allowance
12·00
12·00


Unemployment benefit subsidiary occupation (daily rate)
2·00
2·00


Therapeutic earnings limit
25·50
26·00


Industrial injuries unemployability supplement permitted earnings level (annual amount)
1,326·00
1,352·00


War pensioners' unemployability supplement permitted earnings level
25·50
26·00


Adult dependant's benefit with:




Sickness benefit if claimant is under pension age
18·20
18·60


over pension age
22·25
22·70


Maternity allowance
18·20
18·60


Unemployment benefit if claimant is under pension age
19·00
19·40


over pension age
23·25
23·75


Retirement pension, invalidity pension,




severe disablement allowance,




unemployability supplement where dependent is:




living with the claimant
30·80
31·45


living with the claimant and still qualifies for the tapered earnings rule
45·09
45·09


Retirement pension, invalidity pension and unemployability supplement where dependant not living with claimant
23·25
23·75


Severe disablement allowance where dependant not living with claimant
13·90
14·20


Invalid care allowance (wife or female housekeeper)
13·90
14·20


Child dependency additions level at which child additions payable with long-term benefits are affected by earnings of claimant's spouse or partner first child
85·00
85·00


each subsequent child
10·00
10·00


Family Income Supplement




Prescribed amount for one-child family, where child is aged under 11
98·60
100·70


11–15
99·60
101·75


16 and over
100·60
102·80


Increase for each additional child

Old rates 1986
New rates 1987


under 11
11·65
11·90


11–15
12·65
12·95


16 and over
13·65
14·00


Maximum amount for one·child family where child is aged




under 11
25·30
25·85


11–15
25·80
26·40


16 and over
26·30
26·90


Increase for each additional child




under 11
2·55
2·60


11–15
3·05
3·15


16 and over
3·55
3·65


Guardian's Allowance each child
8·05
8·05


Hospital Downrating




20 per cent, rate
7·75
7·90


40 per cent, rate
15·50
15·80


60 per cent, rate
23·25
23·70


Reduction where wife has pension on her own insurance (category A)
23·20
23·65


Resettlement benefit
62·00
64·00


Housing Benefit




Needs allowances




single person
48·10
48·90


couple/single parent
70·85
72·15


single handicapped person
53·65
54·50


couple (one handicapped) or handicapped single parent
76·40
77·75


couple (both handicapped)
79·00
80·45


pensioner addition
·85
·85


dependent child addition
14·60
14·75


Non·dependant deductions




Rate rebates




aged 18 to pension age, and not on supplementary benefit or youth training scheme nor qualifying for modified deduction after 56 days
2·60
2·70


of pension age, or over 25 and on supplementary benefit or qualifying for modified deduction after 56 days
1·10
1·15


age 16–17 and not on supplementary benefit, youth training scheme or severe disablement allowance, or 16–24 and qualifying for modified deduction after 56 days
1·10
1·15


Rent rebates and allowances aged 18 to pension age and not on supplementary benefit or youth training scheme nor qualifying for modified deduction after 56 days
7·80
8·05


of pension age, or over 25 and on supplementary benefit or qualifying for modified deduction after 56 days
2·80
2·90


aged 16–17 and not on supplementary benefit, youth training scheme or 16–24 and qualifying for modified deduction after 56 days
2·80
2·90


Disregards for:




claimant's earnings
17·30
17·30


partner's earnings
5·00
5·00


various pensions etc.
4·00
4·00


maintenance of non grant·aided students (maximum)
23·85
24·35


Deductions for amenities




all fuel
8·80
8·80


heating
6·70
6·70


hot water
0·80
0·80


lighting
0·50
0·50


cooking
0·80
0·80


Expenses allowed for sub·tenants

furnished letting
3·00
3·00

Old rates 1986
New rates 1987


unfurnished letting
1·50
1·50


garage or outbuilding
0·40
0·40


Industrial Death Benefit




Widow's pension




first 26 weeks
54·20
55·35


higher permanent rate
39·25
40·05


lower permanent rate
11·61
11·85


Child dependency addition
8·05
8·05


Industrial Disablement Pension




18 and over, or under 18 with dependants




100 per cent.
63·20
64·50


90 per cent.
56·88
58·05


80 per cent.
50·56
51·60


70 per cent.
44·24
45·15


60 per cent.
37·50
38·70


50 per cent.
31·60
32·25


40 per cent.
25·28
25·80


30 per cent.
18·96
19·35


20 per cent.
12·64
12·90


under 18




100 per cent.
38·70
39·50


90 per cent.
34·83
35·55


80 per cent.
30·96
31·60


70 per cent.
27·09
27·65


60 per cent.
23·22
23·70


50 per cent.
19·35
19·75


40 per cent.
15·48
15·80


30 per cent.
11·61
11·85


20 per cent.
7·74
7·90


Maximum life gratuity (lump sum)
4,200·00
4,290·00


Unemployability supplement
38·70
39·50


plus where appropriate an increase for early incapacity




higher rate
8·15
8·30


middle rate
5·20
5·30


lower rate
2·60
2·65


Adult dependency addition
23·25
23·75


Child dependency addition
8·05
8·05


Maximum special hardship allowance
25·28
25·80


Constant attendance allowance normal maximum
25·30
25·80


part·time rate
12·65
12·90


intermediate rate
37·95
38·70


exceptional rate
50·60
51·60


Exceptionally severe disablement allowance
25·30
25·80


Invalid Care Allowance
23·25
23·75


Adult dependency addition
13·90
14·20


Invalidity Benefit




Invalidity pension
38·70
39·50


Invalidity allowance




higher rate
8·15
8·30


middle rate
5·20
5·30


lower rate
2·60
2·65


Maternity Benefit




Maternity allowance full rate
29·45
30·05


adult dependency addition
18·20
18·60


three·quarter rate
22·09
22·54


adult dependency addition
13·65
13·95


half rate
14·73
15·03


adult dependency addition
9·10
9·30


Note:Half and three-quarter rates for existing cases only.


Mobility Allowance
21·65
22·10


One Parent Benefit
4·60
4·70

Old rates 1986
New rates 1987


Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis, Workmen's Compensation and Other Schemes




Major incapacity allowance (maximum) and allowance for total disablement
63·20
64·50


partial disablement allowance
23·25
23·75


Unemployability supplement plus where appropriate increases for early incapacity
38·70
39·50


higher rate
8·15
8·30


middle rate
5·20
5·30


lower rate
2·60
2·65


Constant attendance allowance




normal maximum rate
25·30
25·80


part·time rate
12·65
12·90


intermediate rate
37·95
38·70


exceptional rate
50·60
51·60


Exceptionably severe disablement allowance
25·30
25·80


Lesser incapacity allowance (maximum)
23·25
23·75


—based on loss of earnings of over
30·95
31·60


Retirement Pension




on own insurance—category A or B
38·70
39·50


on spouse's insurance—category B (lower)
23·25
23·75


non-contributory—




category C or D
23·25
23·75


category C (lower)
13·90
14·20


additional pension, guaranteed minimum pension and graduated retirement
increased by


benefit
2·1 per cent.


graduated retirement benefit (unit)
5·06p
5·17p


increments to basic and additional pension, guaranteed minimum pension,
increased by


and graduated retirement benefit
2·1 per cent.


maximum amount of additional pension (also paid with widows' and invalidity benefits)
24·03
24·53


addition for over 80's
0·25
0·25


Severe Disablement Allowance
23·25
23·75


adult dependency addition
13·90
14·20


Sickness Benefit




over pension age




single rate
37·05
37·85


adult dependency addition
22·25
22·70


under pension age




full rate
29·45
30·05


adult dependency addition
18·20
18·60


three quarters rate
22·09
22·54


adult dependency addition
13·65
13·95


half rate
14·73
15·03


adult dependency addition
9·10
9·30


Note:Half and three·quarters rates for existing cases only.


Supplementary Benefit




Scale rates




ordinary rates




single householder
29·80
30·40


couple
48·40
49·35


non·householder 18 or over
23·85
24·35


non-householder 16–17
18·40
18·75


long·term rates




single person living alone
37·90
38·65


couple
60·65
61·85


non-householder 18 or over
30·35
30·95


non-householder 16·17
23·25
23·70


dependent children




over 18
23·85
24·35


16–17
18·40
18·75


11–15
15·30
15·60


under 11
10·20
10·40


Board and lodging personal expenses: short term single
9·80
10·00

Old rates 1986
New rates 1987


couple
19·60
20·00


personal expenses:long·term




single
10·95
11·15


couple
21·90
22·30


personal expenses: dependants




18 and over
9·80
10·00


16–17
5·90
6·00


11–15
5·05
5·15


under 11
3·30
3·35


Allowances for personal expenses for claimants in




private and voluntary residential and nursing homes
9·05
9·25


re-establishment centres
9·95
10·15


resettlement units
7·60
7·75


hospital and local authority accommodation
7·75
7·90


the Polish Home Ilford Park
10·95
11·15


Additional requirements




Heating additions (including age·related heating additions)




higher rate
5·55
5·55


lower rate
2·20
2·20


Central heating




higher rate
4·40
4·40


lower rate
2·20
2·20


Estate rate heating




higher rate
8·80
8·80


lower rate
4·40
4·40


Special dietary additions




lower rate
1·60
1·65


higher rate
3·70
3·80


haemodialysis rate
10·65
10·85


Blind person
1·25
1·25


Over age 80
0·25
0·25


Laundry costs
0·55
0·55


Extra bath
0·30
0·30


Housing costs




Reduction for non·dependants aged 18 to pension age, and not on supplementary benefit, a youth training scheme nor qualifying for modified deduction after 56 days
7·80
8·05


of pension age or over 25 and on supplementary benefit or qualifying for modified deduction after 56 days
2·80
2·90


age 16–17 and not on supplementary benefit, a youth training scheme or severe disablement allowance, or 16–24 and qualifying for modified deduction after 56 days
2·80
2·90


non-householder rent addition
3·90
4·05


maintenance and insurance allowance
1·85
1·95


Capital limits for receipt of supplementary benefit
3,000·00
3,000·00


single payments and related items
500·00
500·00


interest on loans for major repairs and improvements
500·00
500·00


lower rate voluntary unemployment deductions
100·00
100·00


Other limits for expenses on starting work
35·00
35·00


religious requirements—funerals
75·00
75·00


single payment for repairs and maintemance
325·00
325·00


Deductions for direct payment fuel bills

Old rates 1986
New rates 1987


5 per cent, rate
1·50
1·55


10 per cent, rate
3·00
3·05


housing costs
1·50
1·55


Earnings disregard—£4 and in the case of single parents half the difference between £4 and £20
4·00
4·00


Unemployment Benefit




Over pension age




single rate
38·70
39·50


adult dependency addition
23·25
23·75


Under pension age




full rate
30·80
31·45


adult dependency addition
19·00
19·40


three-quarters rate
23·10
23·59


adult dependency addition
14·25
14·55


half rate
15·40
15·73


adult dependency addition
9·50
9·70


occupational pension abatement
35·00
35·00


Note:Half and three-quarter rates for existing cases only


War Pensions




Disablement pension (100 per cent, rates)




private or equivalent
63·20
64·50


officer (£ per annum)
3,295·00
3,363·00


Age allowances




40 per cent, to 50 per cent.
4·40
4·50


over 50 per cent, but not over 70 per cent.
6·85
7·00


over 70 per cent, but not over 90 per cent.
9·85
10·05


over 90 per cent
13·70
14·00


Disablement gratuity (£ per annum)




specified minor injury
4,200·00
4,290·00


unspecified minor injury
2,310·00
2,359·50


Unemployability allowance




personal allowance
41·10
41·95


adult dependency addition
23·25
23·75


addition for each child
8·05
8·05


Invalidity allowance




higher rate
8·15
8·30


middle rate
5·20
5·30


lower rate
2·60
2·65


Constant attendance allowance




normal maximum rate
25·30
25·80


part-time rate
12·65
12·90


intermediate rate
37·95
38·70


exceptional rate
50·60
51·60

Comforts allowance



Old rates 1986
New rates 1987


higher rate
10·90
11·10


lower rate
5·45
5·55


Mobility supplement
24·05
24·55


Allowance for lowered standard of occupation (maximum)
25·28
25·80


Exceptionally severe disablement allowance
25·30
25·80


Severe disablement occupational allowance
12·65
12·90


Clothing allowance (per annum)




higher rate
86·00
88·00


lower rate
55·00
56·00


Education allowance (per annum)
120·00
120·00


War widows' pension (private) widow
50·30
51·35


childless widow under age 40
11·61
11·85


age allowance




age 65 to 69
5·40
5·50


age 70 to 79
10·80
11·00


age 80 and over
13·55
13·85


child addition
11·55
11·60


addition for motherless or fatherless child
12·60
12·70


Unmarried dependant living as wife
48·25
49·30


Rent allowance (maximum)
19·15
19·55


Adult orphan's pension
38·70
39·50


Widower's pension (maximum)
50·30
51·35


Widow's Benefit




Widows' allowance
54·20
55·35


Widowed mothers' allowance
38·70
39·50


Widows' pension—standard rate
38·70
39·50


Age-related widows' pension




age 49
35·99
36·74


age 48
33·28
33·97


age 47
30·57
31·21


age 46
27·86
28·44


age 45
25·16
25·68


age 44
22·45
22·91


age 43
19·74
20·15


age 42
17·03
17·38


age 41
14·32
14·62


age 40
11·61
11·85


Non-contributory widow's pension (category C) standard rate
23·25
23·75


age 49
21·62
2209


age 48
20·00
20·43


age 47
18·37
18·76


age 46
16·74
17·10


age 45
15·11
15·44


age 44
13·49
13·78


age 43
11·86
12·11


age 42
10·23
10·45


age 41
8·60
8·79


age 40
6·98
7·13

Sheep Exports (France)

Mr. Robin Corbett: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely,
the illegal interference with live sheep exports from the United Kingdom to France.
The BBC reported this morning that another consignment of sheep for immediate slaughter had been hijacked by French farmers, the sheep released and chased into a field. Some were sprayed with the highly dangerous insecticide, lyndane, which means that they cannot be safely marketed for at least two months. Others were said to have been injected with a substance to achieve the same results. Last week sheep and lambs outside Tours were similarly hijacked and the animals released.
Such exports are licensed by the Minister of Agriculture and the licence must state their final destination. That supposed system of protection, in which those of us who oppose live exports never believed, is in tatters. The Minister of Agriculture should immediately suspend all further licences until the proper welfare of live sheep exports can be guaranteed.
Such incidents, which threaten the welfare of live sheep, follow reports of a trail on a consignment of sheep from the United Kingdom which were licensed for export in France and which turned up in Spain 27 hours later having had no water or feed. Some sheep were dead. The Minister of Agriculture should ensure that a condition of the licence is that if the sheep or other live animals do not arrive at the destination stated on the licence the person holding the licence should face prosecution.
This vile trade in live sheep is bad enough when controls are attempted. It is unacceptable when shipments are hijacked and the welfare of the animals is put at risk to keep them off the French market. That is why I believe the matter to he urgent enough for our consideration.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the illegal interference with live sheep exports from the United Kingdom to France.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, my sole duty in deciding this matter is whether it should take precedence over the Orders set down for today or for tomorrow. I have to say that I do not consider the matter to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House. However, I hope that he will find other opportunities of discussing it.

Kidney Dialysis (Elimination of Waiting Lists)

Mr. Tony Favell: I beg to move,
That leave he given to bring in a Bill to establish procedures for eliminating the waiting lists of patients who require kidney dialysis by contracting out the provision of such facilities.
Experts have estimated that in England and Wales about 1,200 kidney patients are not being served by the dialysis transplant programme. It might help if I explain how that figure is reached. In 1984, in England and Wales, 35 new patients per million head of population received treatment. In many European countries — for example, in West Germany and Spain — the figure was 55 new patients per million.
Before anyone points the finger, I remind the House that, in recent years, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has brought about an enormous improvement. Provisional data for 1985 suggest that in the past year alone the number of new renal patients treated increased from 35 to 40 per million. Data received from the United Kingdom transplant service show that the number of transplant operations performed in the United Kingdom during the six months from January to June 1986 increased by no less than 24 per cent. That is excellent news for those people awaiting transplants.
However, I regret to say that the number of patients awaiting transplants will not reduce until there are more donors. Despite regular and widespread appeals for donors, there is still a tragic shortage. There is a waiting list of 3,000. Many opportunities to donate kidneys are lost through the relatives of someone who had just died failing to appreciate that another's life could be saved. I realise how difficult it is for hospital staff to raise the question of transplants with grieving relatives.
There is therefore a great deal of sense in following the example of certain American states which are considering putting doctors under an obligation to raise the matter with relatives, in suitable cases. If doctors are under an obligation to raise the issue, they will be saved the acute embarrassment of suggesting a donation of organs on the death of a loved one.
My Bill deals with the shortfall in the provision of dialysis treatment for those patients awaiting transplants and those for whom a transplant is not suitable. In that sphere, much has been achieved in the United Kingdom. Almost a quarter of Europeans receiving continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis receive treatment in this country. The United Kingdom has a first-class record on home haemodialysis. Few European countries have more than 10 per cent. of their patients treated at home. Yet over half of our patients have that advantage.
It is in hospital dialysis where we lag behind many European countries. Those for whom CAPD, or home dialysis, is not suitable must rely on hospital treatment. What concerns me is that the shortage of those treated is not through lack of equipment. Doctor Alex Davison, a consultant renal physician of the department of renal medicine, and Professor Geoffrey Giles, a professor of surgery at St. James university hospital in Leeds, in an


article last year, estimated that the number of patients treated by hospital dialysis could double without the purchase of one additional machine.
That finding is supported by a study which reveals that each hospital dialysis machine in the United Kingdom supports only one patient, while in Europe the corresponding figure is 2·9 patients. In other words, one machine in England supports one person, whereas a machine in Europe supports three. That is an appalling waste of resources. No doubt some will argue that the position arises from a shortage of staff. Whilst that may be true in a limited number of cases, it is my firm belief that hospital dialysis machines are not worked to capacity because of inflexible working practices in many Health Service regions.
The best way to explain this is by considering what is happening in Wales. In 1984, 33 new kidney patients per million received treatment. In 1985, just one year later, about 56 new patients per million received treatment. That was due entirely to a bold initiative taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. He invited tenders for the provision of two new renal units. In each case, the district health authority submitted in-house bids in competition with the private sector. In both cases, the private sector bids were successful. Within five months of the contracts being awarded, the units were built, equipped, staffed and receiving their first patients. In each case, there was a substantial saving to the health authority concerned.
The units were brought into operation so quickly simply because the successful bidders were experts in kidney dialysis. They had set up units many times before. That is not so with most district health authorities. Recently, one district health authority took as long as seven years from the date of the go-ahead to bring a unit into operation.
The savings, which can amount to as much as £6,000 per patient per year, are accounted for in a number of

different ways. I shall give examples of what is done at the unit at Carmarthen which I visited. Firstly, administrative overheads are kept to an absolute minimum. Secondly, the staffing patterns are flexible to minimise loss of staff time. For example, the staff customarily work three 11-hour days a week, which accommodates two sets of patients within an 11-hour shift. Most National Health Service units accommodate one set of patients in an eight-hour shift. Thirdly, the unit does not employ technicians; rather, it trains nursing staff to perform technical equipment work. Modern equipment is so reliable that technicians are not required on-site to service equipment. It is far better to keep one or two spare machines in case of an emergency and to make use of manufacturers' service contracts. Fourthly, the unit contracts out all its housekeeping and maintenance services.
Health authorities in England have been urged to follow the Welsh example and to put the provision of hospital kidney dialysis out to tender, but alas with no success. My Bill makes that compulsory. If a health authority, by improved working practices, wins a contract, that is fine, but, if not, resources will be released to treat more patients. When I visited Carmarthen, I found a well-run unit with which patients and staff were highly delighted. The National Health Service renal consultant whom I met had no criticism whatever. Most importantly, lives are being saved. I commend my Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Favell, Mr. Ralph Howell, Mr. Roy Galley, Mrs. Anna McCurley, Mr. Gerald Howarth, Mr. Michael Forsyth and Mr. Peter Hubbard-Miles.

KIDNEY DIALYSIS (ELIMINATION OF WAITING LISTS)

Mr. Tony Favell accordingly presented a Bill to establish procedures for eliminating the waiting lists of patients who require kidney dialysis by contracting out the provision of such facilities: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 31 October and to be printed. [Bill 221.]

Orders of the Day — Sex Discrimination Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 1

SECRET BALLOTING

'The Secretary of State shall not make any order in relation to sections 7 and 8 under section 10(3) unless a secret ballot has been held to ascertain the opinion of the employees affected and a majority vote recorded in favour of the order proposed by the Secretary of State.'.—[Mr. Evans.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Evans: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I welcome the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment — the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee)—to his new post. Recently he moved from defence to employment. I commiserate with his hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) who has moved to a post in the Scottish Office. I do not know whether the activities of the hon. Gentleman in defence will be of any benefit to employment. However, at the outset—I may never do so again—I wish him all the best in his new position. We look forward to his participation in this afternoon's debate. We look forward to his acceptance of some of the amendments and new clauses that we have tabled for consideration today, especially the acceptance of new clause 1. I am sure that the fresh mind and the new ideas that the hon. Gentleman brings to his post mean that he will welcome new clauses such as new clause 1.
I think that the Minister will agree that the Government have often boasted about their views on employees participating in secret ballots. They have often claimed that they have extended democracy in many areas, so let us hope that the further extension of democracy that the Opposition are proposing will be acceptable to the Minister. The new clause would require a secret ballot to be held where any of the provisions set out in clauses 7 and 8 are to be withdrawn, and would cover both men and women. That is because the Government are proposing to repeal a number of protections that employees have enjoyed for a long time. Some of the protections that are being repealed were won by workers or employees after fighting for a long time for better conditions in some of the most difficult industries. That must be put on record immediately.
It must be put on record immediately also that under the Bill the Government are taking the opportunity to further their policy of deregulation in almost every sphere. It is useful to recall what the Government are repealing by means of the Bill. When the Bill is enacted, the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954 will no longer apply. It is disgraceful that the Government are repealing such an important Act which was passed not so long ago. It is not one of the Acts that were passed at the back end of the previous century when certain reformers were trying to protect workers in sweated conditions. The measure was enacted in 1954 and it stemmed from the dreadful

conditions and dreadful competition which then existed within the baking industry. Against that background, the Tory Government of the day saw fit to place on the statute book an Act designed to protect workers in the industry. It is obvious that we have an entirely different Tory Government today from the Administration which was in office in 1954. The present Government are now proposing to repeal the 1954 Act.
A series of provisions specified in the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 and the Factories Act 1961 will no longer apply. At present, women cannot work more than 48 hours a week, or nine hours a day. They can work only between 7 am and 8 pm or between 7 am and 1 pm—five hours—on a Saturday. No woman can work more than four and a half hours without a half-hour break. I think that most people would agree that those are minimum civilised conditions. Any Government claiming to be civilised would surely respect such conditions and keep them on the statute book. Women working in mines and quarries are subject to similar restrictions and I am sure that most intelligent, sensible and decent people would welcome such restrictions.
There are more repeals to come. For example, section 94 of the Factories Act is to go. The section provides that women must be given a full day's holiday on Christmas Day, Good Friday and bank holidays in England and Wales. I suspect that most people would be astonished and shocked to learn that the Government are proposing to repeal the section that provides that protection. That will mean that women will no longer be entitled by statute to days off at Christmas, Good Friday and bank holidays. Section 93 is to go as well. That is the section that prohibits women working on Sundays in factories.
Perhaps even more serious is the repeal of section 114. The section allows the Minister to regulate and make provisions relating to the health and welfare of women engaged in overtime working and other hours covered by exemption if the Minister sees fit, and is something which is currently entirely within the Minister's remit. The proposed repeal of section 114 is a mystery which has not been explained so far. The section places no obligations on the Minister and it would be implemented only if the Minister thought that it was necessary to deal with instances that came within it.
The Opposition's secret ballot proposal is an extension of section 97 of the Factories Act, which was derived from the Employment of Women and Young Persons Act 1936. It is interesting to note how much Parliament has returned over the years to the theme of increasing protection for various groups of workers, especially women and young children, but I am sure that the Minister is beginning to be aware that the Bill is the vehicle for overturning many of the successes that have been won by workers over the years. The 1936 Act allows the Minister, upon an employer's application, to authorise the employment of women and young people over 16 years of age on a system of shifts from 6 am to 10 pm on weekdays and 2 pm on Saturdays. It provides that the Minister must consult the work force to ascertain its opinions by secret ballot before any application is granted under the section. In other words, it is enshrined in legislation that workers shall be consulted in a secret ballot if their terms and conditions of employment are to be altered. That is something that will not apply after the Bill is enacted unless the Minister is prepared to accept the new clause.
The Government are intent on repealing the sections of the Acts to which I have referred, and the new clause would extend the ballot to cover all changes in hours beyond the present legal limits. A similar amendment was introduced in another place in Committee by Lord Wedderburn of Charlton. My noble Friend withdrew his amendment in the hope that the Government would consider the matter further. He advanced his arguments and hoped that they would consider them. He withdrew the amendment partly because it proved to be slightly defective in that it referred to exemption orders when it should have cited authorisations. Needless to say, the Government did not consider the amendment or Lord Wedderburn's arguments. They engaged in nitpicking during the debate and wanted to know to what the proposed ballot would refer. They wanted to know whether the ballot would turn on the right to retain section 97 or whether it would refer to the hours that were to be altered. They engaged in nitpicking instead of addressing themselves to the main question.
My noble Friend did not care particularly what interpretations were placed on the amendment because he wanted the principle that lay behind it to be accepted, and the Opposition's ballot proposals in new clause 1 relate to the proposed conditions. My noble Friend recalled the words of Sir John Simon who was the Home Secretary in 1935, who has often been described as the scourge of the general strike. In introducing the current provisions in 1935, he said:
All of us want to do the right thing for the workpeople, and I hope that every hon. Member will think that was a right thing to do".—[Official Report, 7 December 1936; Vol. 307, c 1674.]
Why is such a ballot any less the right thing now than it was 50 years ago? The Government often boast that they have increased democracy within the trade unions. If that is so, why are they rescinding a right that was established in 1936? In this context we are told repeatedly that ballots are outmoded and unnecessary when they affect management, but I put it to the Minister that the work force is affected much more than management. If ballots were considered essential 50 years ago for work people in relation to their terms and hours of work and conditions, they are equally applicable today.
At all stages of the Bill's progress through Parliament the Government have stressed that they are doing no more than following the recommendation of the Equal Opportunities Commission in dispensing with protective legislation. They are keen to quote the 1977 finding of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys that 40 per cent. of women were in favour of repealing the night work provisions and that 60 per cent. wanted shift and overtime provisions to be repealed. They disregarded the fact that only 11 per cent. of those contacted were willing to work at night.

Mr. Don Dixon: That survey was taken before the deregulation of bus services, which will have a fundamental effect on whether transport is available during off-peak hours. That will affect women who work excess hours.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting an increasingly important point. Sadly, in today's society we hear much about attacks on women at

all times, but especially in the evening and at night. The declining role of public transport will create severe conditions for women who lack their own transport. The people most affected by the Bill will be those who lack their own transport and who rely on public transport.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: In the part of the world from which the hon. Gentleman and I both come, public transport is improving since bus deregulation. Does he not accept that, if an employer wants women workers, he must—

Mr. Evans: rose—

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I shall deal with the point.
Does he accept that if employers want women to man their shifts, they will have to supply the transport or quite simply they will not get them?

Mr. Evans: Apart from the fact that there is a fair distance between the hon. Lady's constituency and mine, and that different conditions exist in the two constituencies, the question of employers supplying transport is not, unfortunately, enshrined in this legislation. All we have is the hon. Lady's word on the matter.
Deregulation in public transport is imminent, so I suggest that the hon. Lady waits for a few months until we can see the outcome of it. I suspect, as I am sure do many people, that although there may well be some cut-throat competition in cities and towns with large populations, in many rural areas such as the hon. Lady's constituency, all the signs are that there may not be a great deal of public transport.
We are discussing transport late at night, and in the middle of the night, and the chance of any public transport being available at such times is remote.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: In the areas that my hon. Friend and I represent, perhaps unlike Lancaster and the plush areas around Morecambe, we had quite a fight to try to maintain the transport service, and it will still be difficult. As many of the shifts will be late at night or in the middle of the night, it is highly unlikely that operators will find it profitable to run transport systems then. That is what we are talking about when we discuss the baking industry. Because of unemployment, it is likely that women especially will have to take jobs of any sort, whatever their disadvantages, and that could lead to tragedies.

Mr. Evans: Evidence supports my hon. Friend's argument that, given the depths of unemployment and constantly growing poverty, especially in families where the husband cannot get a job and is unlikely to get one in the future, particularly in areas that now lack heavy industry, women are increasingly having to accept part-time, poorly paid jobs. When the Bill comes into effect and the current protection of women's hours of work is removed, they will be forced to take shift work, often working late at night and finishing after midnight.
5.15 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), who raised this point originally, is absolutely correct that the Bill will seriously endanger the health and welfare of many women. I am sure that that is not what the Government intended. However, my hon. Friends and I have pointed out the problem to the Government, so that


in future they will be unable to claim that they were unaware of it. It has been driven home to Ministers throughout the passage of the Bill.
now refer to the views expressed by women working at night who were included in the poll. The previous Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, now the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, constantly sought to promote the views of the minority. He was always quick to highlight minority opposition to the removal of restrictions. He said:
Needless to say, those collective agreements can in some cases override the wishes of the minority of individual workers."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A; 19 June 1986, c. 92.]
In other words, if a minority of workers wanted the safeguards to be removed because it would be beneficial to them. their views had to be heard. Unfortunately for the Minister, but perhaps fortunately, the normal concept of democracy is that the views of the majority will prevail. On this occasion, and for their own purposes, the Government seek to promote the views of the minority. I remind the Minister that new clause 1 asks for nothing more than that a simple majority should decide whether to dispense with the restrictions once and for all. The workers will be consulted and will be able to vote on the proposed alterations to their working conditions. Surely even the Minister will accept that it is fair to give a voice and a vote to employees whose conditions are to be altered.

Mr. John Fraser: I dealt with those provisions in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. It troubled me then that there were situations, although by no means universal, where men could receive remunerative overtime for working on a Saturday afternoon whereas women could not go to work on the same Saturday afternoon and receive the same remuneration. If women are the minority in that situation, should the majority of men, who are able to discriminate to earn remunerative overtime, have a veto or should there be consent by the minority of women who wish to align their position?

Mr. Evans: I am sure that my hon. Friend's important point will be pursued later. He did a splendid job during the passage of the 1975 Act with well-rehearsed arguments. It suits the Government to promote the minority point of view at the moment, but it may well suit them to drop that argument altogether on other occasions, as I shall demonstrate.
It is not just women workers who will benefit from a vote on their conditions. Applications for exemption orders for women provide a platform from which better conditions can be negotiated for all workers. Labour Research, an excellent publication which has produced some splendid data for the benefit of those who are prepared to purchase it, reported in December 1985 on the findings of a survey of 92 companies including such giants as Metal Box, Shell UK at Stanlow, Cadbury Bournville and British Nuclear Fuels Limited. It was found that companies that had had to apply for exemption orders provided a minimum meal break of half an hour or more, the average being 33 minutes. The figures for those that had not applied for exemptions were far more varied. Indeed, five reported that they had no guaranteed breaks, and that meals were taken, if at all, as and when work allowed. The average length of break was 25 minutes. The survey concluded that
this suggests that the need to obtain HSE exemption may improve the type of system operated.

Once the HSE exemption had been applied for and the workers were consulted about the proposed changes and the exemption, they took far greater interest. in the operation of better conditions.
The need to hold a ballot may also encourage employers to improve their workers' conditions in an attempt to secure a favourable vote. The aforementioned survey demonstrated just how lacking some large companies are in essential provisions — essential and elementary provisions such as a reasonable meal break in a reasonable place where workers can enjoy their midday meal.
According to the same survey, 76 companies provided some medical facilities for shift workers, although half were first aid only. Twelve had no medical facilities whatsoever, and just 14 had trained medical assistance on all shifts, usually a nurse. Thirty said that public transport was available on all shifts. A staggering 48 said that it was not available, so it was clear—[Interruption.] Whatever was in force, 48 companies said that public transport was not available on shift work. That is the reality of shift work. The clauses that were added to the Bill in the other place—on equal protection orders, unfair dismissal and a code of practice—might have improved the situation. The Government saw fit to remove those clauses in Committee, to their everlasting shame, but new clause 1, on secret balloting, would go some way towards upholding some of the standards that the Bill will lower.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend referred to the low number of companies that had transport facilities in the area in which they operated, which was available for shift workers. That is important. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) sought to turn the argument into one about regulation and deregulation. As my hon. Friend knows, in my area the bus transport system has deteriorated significantly since deregulation because of underfinancing and because of the need for the passenger transport authority to cut back on subsidies. But does not the argument simply come down to this? If the hon. Member for Lancaster is convinced that in her area the transport services are sufficiently good to allow for safe working practices, that would be an inducement for the work forces to vote yes in any secret ballot. All that we are asking is that they should have the opportunity of being consulted on whether transport facilities are adequate. The people in Lancaster might vote yes and the people in Manchester might vote no.

Mr. Evans: I am sure that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) will accept my hon. Friend's point, that that would be one of the factors that would sway the judgment of the workers involved in a ballot on the alteration of their conditions.
For example, some of my constituents have written to me complaining about not only the shortage of buses but sometimes their complete non-appearance. Every time I write to the transport undertaking I am told. almost by return of post, that the reason for the deteriorating service and sometimes the non-appearance of a service, especially in an area such as Billinge, is the requirement placed upon the undertaking to reduce staff in the light of the forthcoming deregulation, which means that it cannot provide the service that it accepts the people are entitled to.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I did not raise this matter—it was raised by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon). I was seeking to dispel some unfortunate misconceptions, which it is important to dispel. In many areas in the city in my constituency, not just in the rural areas, old-fashioned double decker buses could not get round the corners. Those areas were not served. Now, with deregulation and 19-seater minibuses, areas can be served that were never served before. That will be of tremendous assistance to women. Nobody—no woman in particular —would ever wish to put a woman at risk. I believe that women will be better served under the new conditions than in the past.

Mr. Evans: The problems in constituencies such as mine and, no doubt, plenty of other constituencies are not connected with double decker buses not being able to get round corners. Double and single decker buses are not appearing on first-class highways where there is plenty of room for two double decker buses side by side. They are simply not appearing. I suggest that once the new system has been in operation for a few months, we shall all be better able to judge.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Stick to sex.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is more expert than I.
People, particularly women who will be required to do shift work at night, will suffer as a result of the Bill. That is my point, and it has been well made by my hon. Friends. Deregulation of the bus services will add to the problems created by the Bill.

Mr. Dixon: Will the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) tell the House whether many bus services in her constituency are running at 3 and 4 o'clock in the morning?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The hon. Gentleman must not appeal to someone to rise and make another speech.

Mr. Dixon: The hon. Member for Lancaster said that I had raised the issue of deregulation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a misconception to suggest that employers would provide transport if women were to work these peculiar shifts until 3, 4 and 5 am. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) will recall that when we had to work peculiar shifts finishing at 3 or 4 am some of our colleagues had to sleep on the premises until the bus service arrived at 7·30 am. That will happen to some of the women working those peculiar hours.

Mr. Evans: It is a pity that my hon. Friend did not have the opportunity to elaborate on the bus services that existed in the shipbuilding areas on Tyneside for shipyard workers such as himself and myself.

Mr. Eric Forth: Hire a bus.

Mr. Evans: For the hon. Gentleman to say that from a sedentary position shows his lack of knowledge. If that is the best he can do, he should make no further comments from a sedentary position.
It should be borne in mind by Conservative Members that the Bill will worsen the situation for women when they are asked or required to do shift work. The point has been well made that deregulation of public transport will add to their problems.
I return to the point that I was making previously. The Secretary of State for Employment said in the other place on Second Reading that
we should remove any restriction with care". — [Official Report, House of Lords, 27 February 1986; Vol. 471, c. 1209.]
The noble Lord seems to have forgotten that because now almost everything is being removed. The secret ballots that we advocate would test just how careful the Government were because the employees would be given the opportunity to participate in any change that was suggested. The Government will say that such a provision is unworkable, yet it has existed in a reduced form for 50 years. The original ballot did not apply to newly established factories. Nor will ours. It will continue to be run jointly by the employer and the workers' representatives.
Harmonious industrial relations are essential. Hon. Members in all parts of the House agree on that. I welcome the new Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Front Bench, but his predecessor, when describing his utopian view of the world, said:
It is not a battle between one side and the other, but a partnership between the two. If employers' interests are safeguarded, employees' interests will also be protected". —[Official Report, Standing Committee A; 26 June 1986, c. 160.]
5.30 pm
That of course applies the other way round. It should be a matter of common sense that employers provide conditions that are as good as possible. We must remember that the millions of unemployed mean that the ballot will be unrealistic. All the workers involved will be well aware of the threat to them and they will always take a realistic view of whatever suggestions or arguments are put to them. The Government should have no fear of a secret ballot.
If the Minister refuses to accept our new clause, we intend to press it to a Division because we want to see how many of the Tory Back Benchers who so eagerly proclaim the right of trade unionists to hold ballots really want to deny workers—it is often the poorest paid whose terms and conditions are gravely affected—the right to vote on changing their conditions of work. For that reason I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the new clause.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I shall speak for only a couple of minutes and then I shall ask the indulgence of the House because I must leave for a short while to attend a meeting of the Select Committee upstairs.
I can help my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) on a matter which puzzles him. He made a massive and overwhelming case for the new clause and said, understandably, that the part of the Bill which puzilcd him most was that which repeals section 114 of the Factories Act. It is understandable that he should be puzzled by that because, as he told us, that section gives powers to the Secretary of State which he may or may not exercise, entirely at his own discretion. It places no obligation on him.
The repeal of section 114 represents a reduction of the Secretary of State's powers. Almost all of our legislation increases the powers which are given to Ministers. I strain my memory back over the years to try to recall, and I cannot, the last occasion on which there was a provision in a Bill to reduce a Minister's powers. Why do the Government wish to shed this power which, as my hon.


Friend the Member for St. Helens, North said, places no obligation whatever on the Minister but gives him absolute discretion over what to implement and where to implement it?
I have the answer. It is simply that the Minister does not expect to be sitting in his present place after the next general election, and his powers are being reduced because the Government know very well that a Labour Minister after the next election would use those powers to regulate and to make provisions relating to the health and welfare of women engaged in overtime and other hours covered by exemptions to improve and enhance their health and welfare.
The reason for the Government's apparently strange action in diminishing a Minister's powers is that they want to diminish the powers of a Minister of another party. Clearly therefore that action shows that the Government expect, 'ere long, that there will be a Minister, and therefore a Government, of another party. That is the solution to the mystery. If the Minister has any other explanation, I shall he intrigued to hear it when he replies.

Mr. Ken Weetch: I shall make a short speech in support of the new clause. I have been disappointed so far because the Minister has not intervened to say that he has accepted the principle of the new clause. The new clause is quite straightforward, clear and just in its intentions. I should have thought that, after having had the long recess in which to reflect on these matters, the Government would have approached the Bill in a more sober and generous frame of mind. However, that is not to be, so the case will have to be argued.
The new clause's intention is quite clear. It seeks to ensure that ballots are organised before workers' rights are scrapped. That is a simple and just principle to argue because, after all, clauses 7 and 8 destroy a great deal of legislative protection. I should have thought that the Government would consider this clause in a favourable light in view of the seriousness of their proposals.
During the past two years the Government have alleged that they are a great friend of ballots and balloting. They have put out so much propaganda in trade union Acts in favour of balloting that one might imagine that they had invented the concept of balloting. But now that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) has put forward a proposal for a ballot in a vital area of industrial protective legislation, the Government have immediately shown that their support of ballots was pretty partial and selective.
I shall be interested to hear how the Government support that partial line of argument and that partial philosophy of industrial democracy. After all, we have had ballots for elections to national executives of trade unions, balloting before strikes and in respect of political funds, but now that there is a proposal for balloting to discover whether people are in agreement the Government do not want to know.

Mr. Hoyle: My hon. Friend referred to balloting for political funds. Is it because the Government did not achieve their objective there and got a bloody nose that they are not now so keen on ballots?

Mr. Weetch: That is a sound intervention. The plain fact is that all the Government's plans were based on a total miscalculation of political ballots. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) has made

the point well, and will probably make it much better than I can subsequently. If there is a ballot, it will show more accurately whether the legislation is wanted in certain industries.
So far we have had only a doctrinaire and ideological statement from the Government saying that free enterprise in this sort of area is good for all. But that is not a self-evident proposition. If the Government put it to the test in ballots, they would find out that they were wrong. However, we could then obtain some accurate information and would not have to listen to the sort of vague assertions that the Government make.
If there was a necessity for ballots before the Bill's provisions came into operation, many employers offering bad working hours or conditions of work would have to sharpen up considerably in order to win those ballots. Ballots would be a great incentive for employers to improve conditions. I could imagine workers in some industries that I know of being pretty sceptical about throwing away legislative protection because they know full well their existing conditions of work. Of course, that is why the Government intend to dodge the issue. This could be a Bill for bad employers and, in some cases, it will probably be so.
An argument of principle underlies the legislation and, in particular, clauses 7 and 8. Section 1 and part 1 of the first schedule to the Hours of Employment (Conventions) Act 1936 will cease to have effect, along with certain provisions of the Factories Act 1961 and the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954. Under clause 10(3) the legislation is to come into operation by Government order on the due date.
The bedrock of principle underlying the Government's argument is that it is a desirable sort of equality for women to lose legislative protection so that they can be subject to the less favourable conditions "enjoyed" by male workers. But that type of equality finds no response in me. Throughout the industrial revolution factory masters argued that if women and children had legislative protection they would somehow be inferior citizens. That proposition was always disputed by my parliamentary predecessors.
I make no apology for holding the old-fashioned view that women often need special legislative protection. It is wrong in principle to withdraw such protection. The Government are in a headlong rush towards deregulation and do not care how many casualties there are along the way. But we oppose that viewpoint. The new clause sets out the principles that we believe in, and is willing to test them in a democratic vote. Ultimately, that will be the litmus test. There are overwhelming arguments for the new clause. I hope that the Government will give way and accept it, but, if they do not do so, I hope that we shall defeat them in the Lobby.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) made an important point when he said that the assertions made on Second Reading and in Committee could be put to the test. After all, it has been asserted that the legislative framework that the Government want to dismantle is outmoded. I must welcome the Minister to his place, but he comes late to this issue. Unfortunately for him, the Bill has slipped through several hands before coming to his. If he is unfamiliar with the arguments, and if he does not feel confident about


arguing against secret ballots, we can at least accept that he is acting from ignorance, unlike his colleagues, who simply lacked any arguments.
Indeed, one of the Minister's predecessors wrote to the general secretary of the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union about the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954. He said:
Investigation has led us to conclude that the Act is outdated and unnecessary. The particular problems of the industry which the Act sought to solve in the 1950s are no longer significant.
In Committee we challenged that statement and we were never given any evidence to support it by the then Minister. We also wanted to see some evidence to support the Government's assertions about their proposals involving the Factories Acts. We wanted some evidence that that protective framework was no longer necessary, but we were just given the statement that the Government had come to a considered judgment about the matter. The Government did not want to pursue the custom even of previous Conservative Governments of setting up an inquiry or examining in detail the industry's conditions. Ministers have merely asserted that the present legislative framework is a burden on industry.
However, people in the baking industry can work 72 hours a week on night shifts. In this day and age it is a disgrace that someone should spend well over half his waking time working in the baking industry six days a week and 12 hours a day. It is nonsense and an insult to those working in such industries to say that the present legislation is burdensome.
However, if the Minister still insists that the legislative framework is outdated and no longer necessary, he should remember that there are women who rightly fear being cast on to the streets of our industrial cities in the middle of the night or early in the morning when no adequate transport service exists. The Minister may insist that people do not need protection against excessive hours of work, but he should at least let those involved decide whether they agree with him.
The Government assert that they have knowledge or information, which they will not give the House. They insist that that information-exists in principle. The people who know about working conditions are those who work in the industry. Surely, if there are adequate transport services, through deregulation or any other mechanisms, and acceptable working conditions in those parts of industry where women do not work, women themselves would know that and be able to put that to the test by voting in the secret ballots which the new clause would introduce.
Surely, on the same basis, it would be possible for those who work in the baking industry to decide whether the existing framework, which in any case allows for exemption from the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act, is no longer necessary. They would have the opportunity to vote it out of the way in a secret ballot. But, for that 30 per cent. of the baking industry who are not members of trade unions and for those who work in that largely unorganised sector of the baking industry where only 2 per cent. of the work force are members of trade unions and where there is no negotiated framework, the present structure is all that exists to protect them.
If workers feel that 72 hours are not enough hours in the week to work, they will have the opportunity to vote for longer hours. There are only 168 hours in the week. Perhaps they will vote for a working week of 168 hours under the benign management in those companies that already operate long shifts. Although I would disapprove strongly of those people downgrading their working conditions in such a dramatic way, the Government, who have committed themselves to the mast of the ballot on each and every occasion, must stick with the principle of allowing those in work to make that decision.
On the Second Reading of the Trade Union Bill, the then Secretary of State for Employment said that he gave a message to the unions. That message would be applicable across the board to those who operated in industry and those who wanted to maintain good communications and good industrial relations. He said:
The message … must be that thinking that admiration and respect can be gained through conscription and compulsion is a very dangerous philosophy." — [Official Report, 8 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 159.]
The Minister used that telling phrase to justify ballots and the need for trade unions to consult their members. Certainly the trade union movement, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) has pointed out, took to those ballots with alacrity and proved that they would be able to serve the needs of their members. In every case the Government's proposals were overwhelmingly defeated in the ballots on which they insisted and the trade unions were vindicated in their stance. If the Government are so confident about the irrelevance of the existing legislation, let them use the test of the ballot and put it to the vote. They should not downgrade the working conditions of people in industry simply on the basis of allegation. Let us put it to a proper test—the test of those ballots which, it appears, will do for everyone but the Government.

Mr. Hoyle: I never give up hope of a change of mind. I should have thought—my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) made this point—that, by now, with such a reasonable clause as this there would have been a general acceptance by the Government. I always have great hope, particularly when a new Minister takes over, that a fresh mind will look at these problems.

Mr. Dixon: Unfortunately, he had already been sullied in an another Department.

Mr. Hoyle: He may well have been sullied in another Department, but I know the new Minister. I have always had hopes of him. Often he has been regarded as a humane person. I am sure that he would not want to worsen the working conditions of some of the most impoverished people in the community, particularly women who do not work in ideal conditions. We cannot argue that they have high wages, short hours and the best conditions possible. Indeed, the opposite is true. In many cases they work very long hours for very low pay in conditions that should not be tolerated in the 1980s. Yet the Government intend to worsen those already bad conditions. They say, "We will remove the protection afforded by clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill." They hope to get away with that.
The consequences of the Government's actions were well spelled out by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans). He drew attention to the fact that people will work long hours in intolerable conditions. What will happen to them at the end of the shift,


particularly night shifts? I am sorry that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) has left the Chamber. I do not share her view that bus services in Lancaster and Morecambe are so marvellous that they should be extended to the rest of the country. Our experience has shown that, with the current deregulation, transport services during normal hours are often likely to be cut. Is it possible that, if bus companies are asked to make a profit on these services in open competition, they will run buses in the middle of the night? It is claimed that these employers who are far from the best employers—indeed they are among the worst—will put on buses at their own expense.
The Government cannot have it both ways. Sometimes they say, "We need this type of legislation because of the burdens on employers and the need to cut costs." They imagine that they will pass costs on to employers who will provide transport. I do not think that the Minister or any Conservative Member would pretend that such services would be provided.
What will happen? We have heard the fearful stories of people, particularly women, being attacked. We have heard that it is unsafe for them to go out at night and that many are afraid to do so. Because this protection is to be taken from employees, they will put themselves in danger by working these hours.
Given the unemployment level under this Government, workers are under pressure — whatever danger they might be in and whatever poor working conditions they have to endure for long periods—because in many cases they are the only breadwinners in the family. They are likely to say, "If we have to work shifts and work at night, so be it. We do not like doing it, we do not want to do it, but that might be the only way forward." Many of the poorest workers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) suggested—I am sorry that he has left the Chamber—do not even have the protection of a trade union.
We are asking the Minister to allow workers to hold a ballot. What is wrong with that? After all, the Government believe in ballots, and have introduced ballots for all sorts of matters applying to trade unions—which were the most democratic institutions in Britain even before the Government introduced the new regulations. The Government are not prepared to do anything about employers and shed only crocodile tears for workers. They insisted that trade unions hold a secret ballot before calling a strike, and portrayed a picture of mass meetings with workers having to hold up their hands. That picture bears no similarity to any of the meetings that I have attended. The Government said that trade union members needed to be protected against their own unions at such meetings. Does not the reverse apply? Is not protection needed against bad employers? Should not the Government be including that sort of protection in clauses 7 and 8? Are they not being a little shallow in saying that there is no need for that protection?
All that we are saying — and it is no more than reasonable—is that workers should be asked for their opinion. They have no other protection, and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to refuse them that simple protection. If the Minister has any humanity he will accept our new clause and will say, "I will not allow conditions to worsen unless people have the right to vote on whether they want to work shifts, nights or whatever."
6 pm
All that we are asking for is a simple majority in a ballot. If, by a simple majority, the workers decide what they want to do, so be it. Surely a Government who are so concerned about democracy and ballots—especially secret ballots for trade unions—should prove that they are not only friends of the employers, but friends of the work force. The workers may decide in the ballot to accept a worsening of their conditions, but on the other hand they may not. If they did, at least the choice would have been theirs. It would not be thrust upon them because of economic conditions, mass unemployment or because of the necessity for a wage, however poor and whatever the dangers in which they put themselves. I simply cannot imagine that anyone would wish to refuse them that right. Ours is a most reasonable request — that the Government should extend to workers the democracy that they apply to the trade unions and give them the right of choice. I hope that the Government will agree to do that.

Mr. Dixon: We all wait with interest to hear what the Minister will say when he argues against our proposal for ballots. After all, this Government believe that they invented ballots. They want ballots before strikes, ballots for closed shops and so on. Our proposal for a ballot requires only a simple majority—not the 85 per cent. majority that the Government insist upon before a strike can be called. The Government have asked for ballots for the election of trade union leaders and say that union members should have the right to choose their leaders—yet they still accept that the Prime Minister should appoint the chairman of the Conservative party. That is somewhat inconsistent.
The Paymaster General said that he had worked in the baking industry. At least he was protected by legislation, yet he now wants to take that away from women. The Bill will mean that women will be expected to work all sorts of hours, on Saturday afternoons and on Sundays. They will have difficulty in finding transport late at night or early in the morning because the Government have deregulated our transport systems.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) said that it was inconsistent for the Government to withdraw a protection that was introduced 50 years ago. I remind my hon. Friend that the Wages Bill abolishes the Truck Acts, which were introduced in 1836 to protect workers. They have also reneged on the International Labour Organisation convention giving protection to low-paid workers, to which 94 nations were signatories. This measure is a continuation of the Government's attack on low-paid workers, especially women and juniors.
I think that, tactically, we made a mistake in tabling the new clause. We should have used the words. "unless a ballot has been held", because the Government would then have immediately tabled an amendment to put the word "secret" in front of the word "ballot".
We all look forward to the new Minister's speech and hope that he will accept the new clause. Indeed, we shall be interested to hear the grounds on which he could argue against it, bearing in mind the Government's record on ballots. How can he justify workers not being allowed to ballot on a protection that they have enjoyed for 50 years?

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Despite the aroma of roast potatoes, meat and cabbage that is pervading the Chamber, I do not wish this clause to pass without making


certain points. You may not have noticed the aroma, Mr. Speaker, but it has most hon. Members' taste buds working.
It is incredible that a Government who have such a bad record on anti-discrimination should pretend that they are heart and soul behind the Bill and that they want to equalise the protection for men and women. We know that they want to equalise down rather than up. This Government have been brought before the European Court of Justice more often than any other Government in the European Community because they have failed to move with the times and plug the loopholes in our antidiscrimination laws. It is only because of the European Court of Justice ruling that the Government have been forced to consider presenting a Sex Discrimination Bill. Therefore, I do not have great faith in the Government's intentions.
I have found the new Minister agreeable, tolerant and concerned about people. He did not have much opportunity to show those qualities with his previous brief, but he now has the opportunity that he so richly deserves to show his true compassion. Given the Government's commitment to ballots, especially secret ballots, I cannot believe that he will not accept our new clause. Not to accept it must be contrary to his natural inclinations, and certainly to the inclinations of his party.
Women are already at a considerable disadvantage and are among the lowest paid workers. Many of them are not members of trade unions, and the Bill will mean that they will lose the very little protection that they have. I appeal to the Minister, who, if he were given a free hand, would certainly fully support most of the points made by my hon. Friends. I hope that, after hearing their pleas and the poignant and persuasive arguments that they have advanced, he will say that he accepts the new clause. That would be only natural justice for workers in this country.
The Government have an appalling record on anti-discrimination legislation. The case of women has been put back about 50 years since 1979, and this is the Minister's opportunity to show that the Government have had a change of heart. I am sure that many women and other workers are waiting to hear the Minister's support for the new clause.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): I should like to thank the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) for his kind personal remarks and to thank other hon. Members for what they have said. I do not profess to be the world's leading expert on employment legislation, but my previous role in the Ministry of Defence meant that I was conscious of the fact that our defence expenditure sustains about 1·2 million jobs in Britain. I chaired our joint Whitley council and we employed about 500,000 people as service men and civil servants, so I am not wholly unaware of the employment scene.
It makes a pleasant change to be berated on employment matters rather than, as before, being berated by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) about the lack of orders for Swan Hunter, or by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) about the air-land battle doctrine. I do not want, however, to throw any more smoke grenades into this debate.
New clause 1 seeks to ensure that, before the Secretary of State makes an order for repeal, under clause 10(3), of the restrictions on hours and other conditions of work set out in clauses 7 and 8 there would have to be a secret ballot of the employees who will be affected and that that ballot would have to produce a majority vote in favour of repeal. In other words, the new clause could require us to hold what would effectively be a referendum of the 1·5 million or so employees affected, the results of which would determine whether we should proceed with the proposed repeals.
I must oppose the new clause on the following grounds. I am sorry to disappoint Opposition Members. First, there is the principle involved. It is surely unnecessary to demand, as the new clause effectively does, secret ballots of those who may be affected by the proposed changes in legislation. Presumably falling to the Government to organise, ballots would be tantamount to nationwide referendums on the repeals involved. We do not believe that the changes involved will be in any way fundamental or radical. The concept of dealing in such a way with such matters, which involve no hint of constitutional change, offends against the principle of parliamentary democracy. To confine it only to employees affected as the new clause proposes leaves out of account the interests of the others involved, in particular, the employers and the consumers of the products of the industries concerned.
The proponents of the new clause have made debating points about the selectivity of our vision when it comes to applying the principle of balloting, but the situation we have with these repeals of discriminatory restrictions on hours of work is not in any way analogous with the provisions on balloting required by the Trade Union Act 1984. That Act sprang from a widespread concern about trade union democracy and the way in which trade unions are run. It requires the proper secret balloting of a union's membership before the election of members of the union's executive committee, and prevents unions from ordering their members to stop work and take industrial action without obtaining a proper mandate by holding a secret ballot. The issues are simply not the same here. This Bill will remove restrictions on people working. It will not force them to stop work against their will. It aims to remove outdated and discriminatory restrictions on women's hours of work so that they can lose, once and for all, the somewhat second-class status that the restrictions impose on them and, at the same time, relieve their employers of an unnecessary bureaucratic burden. These repeals will not be to women's overall detriment. On the contrary, they will open up opportunities and increase flexibility which I would have expected the Opposition to welcome.
6.15 pm
The hon. Members for St. Helens, North and for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) mentioned section 114 of the Factories Act 1961. The section is being amended so that the reference to women is removed. It will still apply to young people. It applies only to people employed in pursuance of an exemption to the hours of work provisions in that Act. Once they are repealed in regard to women, there is no need for the section to apply to women. Section 114 will therefore no longer apply to them either. An employer will continue to be under a duty under the


Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all employees.

Mr. Hoyle: When talking about flexibility, the Minister seems to be neglecting the fact that there will be a worsening of conditions. Why, therefore, is he refusing a ballot?

Mr. Lee: We do not believe that the Bill will necessarily worsen working conditions. The vast majority of women and men are not covered by the restrictions that we are repealing. I am convinced that secret balloting as provided for by the new clause is completely unnecessary. There is no reason to believe that the repeal of these restrictions will result in a dramatic change in working hours. Any manufacturer who wants to employ women at normally prohibited times is almost certainly already doing so under a special exemption order, of which some 4,000 are in force covering 200,000 of the 1·5 million women in manufacturing.
The provisions of the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954 have largely been replaced by the terms of collective agreements gaining exemption from the Act. We should not forget the vast majority of working women in unregulated sectors and men in employment other than baking who have never been subject to the restrictions this Bill seeks to repeal—more than 10 times as many as are immediately affected by these repeals. They settle issues to do with hours and related working conditions through negotiation, either individually or collectively, and this system seems to meet their needs entirely adequately. We believe that the proponents of this new clause underestimate the abilities of employees to sort out these things satisfactorily for themselves.
The new clause's advocates have not fully addressed the numerous practical problems involved if it were accepted that there were arguments of principle for a secret ballot. There would be practical difficulties in identifying all the employees who stand to be affected by the repeals. It is not clear whether employees covered by special exemption orders should be balloted. We have already stated our intention to implement some of the repeals quickly, but delaying others, and I shall put our specific proposals later when we discuss amendment No. 13. This clause would clearly make implementation more difficult and costly for whoever is charged with paying for the ballot. Its practical consequences would be lengthy delay—if not, indeed, to block repeals completely because of difficulties in meeting the exact requirements of the clause, even though a majority might wish to vote for a repeal.
That is not our principal argument against new clause 1. To sum up, it would be inappropriate to require what amounts to a referendum before implementing what we believe will be a useful measure both for women whose opportunities will be enhanced, and for their employers, whose flexibility of operation will be increased: and which gives further encouragement to enterprise from which we all stand to benefit.
I accordingly ask the Opposition to withdraw the clause, otherwise I shall have to ask my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. Evans: One of the penalties of being an Opposition spokesman on employment is that one has continually to come to the House to have one-sided debates on issues such as this. Whenever we discuss social measures

regarding employment, there is no interest from the Tory Back Benches and plenty of interest from my right hon. and hon. Friends. Many have made excellent speeches today, but we have had not one speech from the Conservative Back Benches to justify their voting down the rights of workers.
I appreciate the Minister's difficulties, that he is new in post and that he has to take the brief that has been given to him and read it. I make no complaint about that—it is one of the difficulties which always occurs with reshuffles. I am sure that when he rereads what he read to the House he will wish that he had taken a different view on some matters.
I particularly take the Minister to task for saying that the ballots would offend against the principles of parliamentary democracy. It is all very well to have parliamentary democracy in places such as this where we can pay tribute and compliment each other, but we are debating the terms and conditions of millions of men and women who are often the lowest paid and who often work in deplorable conditions without trade unionism.
The reason why much of the protective legislation has been put on the statute book over the years is that there has not been effective trade unionism in many of those sectors. Parliament in its wisdom through successive Governments has taken the view that workers in certain industries and sectors who lack the ability to protect themselves through normal trade union activities should be protected by Act of Parliament. The Minister referred to other industries where workers do not have these protections, but they do not need Parliament to protect them because they have the protection of their trade unions and, if necessary, can enforce that protection by industrial action. The workers in the sectors that, are covered in this Bill do not have the strength of trade unions and cannot protect themselves.
The Minister explained section 114 of the Factories Act 1961 and pointed out that it would still apply to young people, but for how long? We have seen what the Government have done for young people in the Wages Bill. They have removed the protections afforded to young people by the wages councils. How long will young people have the protection of section 114? Will the protections afforded by section 114 be removed from young people in the further acts against workers and of deregulation that Ministers are continually promising us?
I agree with my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), who rightly pointed out that the Government's record on the protection of women and on promoting women's equality is deplorable. It is a scandal that a woman Prime Minister has presided over a seven-year period in which we have seen the constant erosion of the rights of women, few though they are. That is why I hope and expect that every woman will consider what is happening in the House of Commons with this Bill and will recognise in the not-toodistant future that she will have the opportunity of a parliamentary secret ballot to get rid of the Government.
Tonight we are simply dealing with new clause I and I ask my hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby in support of it. We want to see on the record how many Tory Members will take this opportunity to deny millions of workers the right to a secret ballot about the terms and conditions of their employment.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—


[Mr. Evans]

The House divided: Ayes 181, Noes 227.

Division No.289]
[6.23 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Heffer, Eric S.


Alton, David
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Anderson, Donald
Home Robertson, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Howells, Geraint


Ashdown, Paddy
Hoyle, Douglas


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Barnett, Guy
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Beith, A. J.
Janner, Hon Greville


Bell, Stuart
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
John, Brynmor


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bidwell, Sydney
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Blair, Anthony
Kennedy, Charles


Boyes, Roland
Kirkwood, Archy


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Lambie, David


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Lamond, James


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Leighton, Ronald


Bruce, Malcolm
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Buchan, Norman
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Livsey, Richard


Campbell, Ian
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Loyden, Edward


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
McCartney, Hugh


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Clay, Robert
McGuire, Michael


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cohen, Harry
McKelvey, William


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Corbett, Robin
Maclennan, Robert


Corbyn, Jeremy
McNamara, Kevin


Craigen, J. M.
McTaggart, Robert


Crowther, Stan
McWilliam, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Madden, Max


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Marek, Dr John


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Deakins, Eric
Martin, Michael


Dewar, Donald
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dobson, Frank
Maxton, John


Dormand, Jack
Maynard, Miss Joan


Douglas, Dick
Meacher, Michael


Dubs, Alfred
Meadowcroft, Michael


Duffy, A. E. P.
Michie, William


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Mikardo, Ian


Eadie, Alex
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Eastham, Ken
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Ewing, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fatchett, Derek
Nellist, David


Faulds, Andrew
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
O'Brien, William


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
O'Neill, Martin


Fisher, Mark
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Flannery, Martin
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Park, George


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Parry, Robert


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Patchett, Terry


Freud, Clement
Pavitt, Laurie


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Pendry, Tom


Godman, Dr Norman
Pike, Peter


Golding, Mrs Llin
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Gould, Bryan
Prescott, John


Gourlay, Harry
Radice, Giles


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Randall, Stuart


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Raynsford, Nick


Hancock, Michael
Redmond, Martin


Harman, Ms Harriet
Richardson, Ms Jo


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Rooker, J. W.





Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Rowlands, Ted
Tinn, James


Sedgemore, Brian
Torney, Tom


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Wainwright, R.


Shields, Mrs Elizabeth
Wallace, James


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Wareing, Robert


Short, Mrs H.(W'hampt'n NE)
Weetch, Ken


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Welsh, Michael


Skinner, Dennis
White, James


Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Wigley, Dafydd


Soley, Clive
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, Gordon


Steel, Rt Hon David
Winnick, David


Stott, Roger
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Strang, Gavin



Straw, Jack
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Mr. Ron Davies and


Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Mr. Don Dixon.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Aitken, Jonathan
Grist, Ian


Ancram, Michael
Ground, Patrick


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Grylls, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Batiste, Spencer
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hannam, John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Harris, David


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Harvey, Robert


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Haselhurst, Alan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Bright, Graham
Hayes, J.


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Browne, John
Hayward, Robert


Bruinvels, Peter
Heddle, John


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Henderson, Barry


Budgen, Nick
Hickmet, Richard


Burt, Alistair
Hicks, Robert


Butterfill, John
Hill, James


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hind, Kenneth


Cash, William
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Churchill, W. S.
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Cockeram, Eric
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Coombs, Simon
Irving, Charles


Cope, John
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Cranborne, Viscount
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dicks, Terry
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Dorrell, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Dunn, Robert
Key, Robert


Durant, Tony
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Favell, Anthony
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Knowles, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Knox, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Forth, Eric
Lang, Ian


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Latham, Michael


Franks, Cecil
Lawler, Geoffrey


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Lawrence, Ivan


Fry, Peter
Lee, John (Pendle)


Gale, Roger
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Galley, Roy
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lightbown, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Lilley, Peter


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Gow, Ian
Lord, Michael


Gower, Sir Raymond
Lyell, Nicholas


Grant, Sir Anthony
McCrindle, Robert


Greenway, Harry
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Gregory, Conal
Macfarlane, Neil


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
MacGregor, Rt Hon John






MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Rowe, Andrew


Maclean, David John
Sackville, Hon Thomas


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Sayeed, Jonathan


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


McQuarrie, Albert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Madel, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Major, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Malins, Humfrey
Shersby, Michael


Malone, Gerald
Silvester, Fred


Maples, John
Sims, Roger


Marland, Paul
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mates, Michael
Speed, Keith


Mather, Carol
Speller, Tony


Maude, Hon Francis
Spencer, Derek


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Squire, Robin


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stern, Michael


Miscampbell, Norman
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Moate, Roger
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mudd, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Neale, Gerrard
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Needham, Richard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end B)


Nelson, Anthony
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Neubert, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Norris, Steven
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Onslow, Cranley
Thurnham, Peter


Osborn, Sir John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Ottaway, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Pattie, Geoffrey
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pawsey, James
Waddington, David


Pollock, Alexander
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Porter, Barry
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Portillo, Michael
Waller, Gary


Powell, William (Corby)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Powley, John
Warren, Kenneth


Prentice. Rt Hon Reg
Watts, John


Proctor, K. Harvey
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Rattan, Keith
Whitney, Raymond


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wiggin, Jerry


Rathbone, Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Renton, Tim
Woodcock, Michael


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Yeo, Tim


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm



Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Tellers for the Noes:


Roe, Mrs Marion
Mr. Peter Lloyd and


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Mr. Richard Ryder.


Rost, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 2

PROTECTION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS

`(1) In this section the relevant enactments are the provisions of the Hours of Employment (Conventions) Act 1936, the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954 and the Factories Act 1961, which are mentioned in sections 3 and 4 above and in Part II of the Schedule to this Act, and any subordinate legislation made under or by reference to those provisions (in this Act called "protected conditions").
(2) Schedule (Rights of established workers covered by protected conditions) to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of giving certain rights concerning workers covered by the protected conditions so employed at the commencement of this Act.'.—[Mr. Evans.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Evans: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the new schedule—Rights of established workers covered by protected conditions—

Right not to be dismissed

1. Subject to paragraph 3 below, the dismissal of an employee who is employed on the day before the commencement date shall be regarded as unfair for the purposes of Part V of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 ("the 1978 Act") if the reason for the dismissal (or if more than one, the principle reason) is that he has refused to do work that was previously subject to a protected condition.

Right not to have action short of dismissal taken
2. Subject to paragraph 3 below, every employee who is employed on the day before the commencement date shall have the right not to have action (short of dismissal) taken against him by his employer for the purpose of compelling him to do or agree to do, or penalising him for refusing to do work that was previously subject to a protected condition.

Exclusion for contractual exemptions from protected conditions
3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 above do not apply where the work in question is work which at the time of dismissal or, as the case may be, of the taking of the action the employee was obliged to do that was originally subject to a protected condition by virtue of an agreement made by him before the commencement date or of a written agreement made by him on or after that date.

Modifications of 1978 Act in paragraph 1 cases
4. Section 54 of the 1978 Act (right not to be unfairly dismissed) shall apply to a dismissal regarded as unfair by virtue of paragraph l above regardless of the period for which the employee has been employed and of his age; and accordingly sections 64(1) and 64A(1) of that Act (which disapply the right not to be unfairly dismissed in cases where the employee has not been continuously employed for qualifying periods or has attained retiring age) shall not apply to such a dismissal.
5. — (1) Where in the case of a dismissal regarded as unfair by virtue of paragraph 1 above an additional award falls to be made under section 71(2)(b) of the 1978 Act (compensation where employee not re-enstated or reingaged in accordance with an order for reinstatement or re-engagement following unfair dismissal), the amount shall be not less than 26 and not more than 52 weeks pay.
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph the amount of a week's pay shall be calculated in accordance with Schedule 14 to the 1978 Act.
6. Subsection (3) of section 57 of the 1978 Act (determination of question whether dismissal fair or unfair) shall have effect subject to paragraph 1 above.

Application of 1978 Act provisions in paragraph 2 cases
7. — (1) Sections 24 to 26 and 133 of the 1978 Act (complaint to the industrial tribunal, compensation and conciliation officers) shall apply in relation to paragraph 2 above as they apply in relation to section 23 of the Act.
(2) The following provisions of the 1978 Act, namely—
section 129 (remedy for infringement of certain rights),
section 132 (recoupment of unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit),
section 136 (appeals), and
Part IX (miscellaneous and supplementary provisions), shall apply as if paragraph 2 above were contained in Part II of that Act.

Meaning of "protected worker"
8. — (1) Where on the day before are commencement date a protected worker's relations with his employer have ceased to be governed by a contract of employment, he shall nevertheless be regarded for the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2 above as having been employed as a protected worker on that day if that day falls in a week which counts as a period


of employment with that employer under paragraph 9 or 10 of Schedule 13 to the 1978 Act (absence from work because of sickness, pregnancy, etc.).
(2) Where section 56 of the 1978 Act (failure to permit women to return to work after confinement treated as dismissal) applies to an employee who was employed under protected conditions under her original contract of employment she shall be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as if she had been employed as a protected worker on the date on which she is treated as dismissed under that section.

General interpretation
9. In this Schedule—
action", "contract of employment", "employee", "employer", "employment" and "original contract of employment" have the meanings given in section 153(1) of the 1978 Act;
commencement date" means the date on which the Act is passed;
dismissal" has the same meaning as in the 1978 Act; "the 1978 Act" means the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.

Mr. Evans: It would be remiss of me if I did not offer a comment on the result of the vote that has just been announced. I can only assume that there have been substantial abstentions on the Government Benches. Apparently many of the Government's troops are missing for one reason or another. I can only hope that they are missing as a result of the force and power of the arguments put forward by myself and my hon. Friends. These arguments must have persuaded many Government Back-Bench Members to abstain on this important issue.
I would go further and take this opportunity to suggest that those Conservative Members who abstained in the previous vote should go a little further than that on the vote on new clause 2. I suggest that they should vote with the Opposition and we will carry the day.
Although the previous new clause was important, new clause 2 is even more important in relation to workers' rights. New clause 2 will make it illegal for a worker to be dismissed for refusing to work any periods previously forbidden under the legislation which is repealed by the Bill. Although it could be said that the previous new clause dealt with more academic issues such as giving workers the right to have a vote on changes in their terms and conditions of employment, new clause 2 is even more fundamental. It will extend protections to workers if they refuse to work the new hours which an employer might impose upon them.
New clause 2 and the new schedule follow on from old clause 7, which was inserted in the Bill in another place with all-party support. Sadly, clause 7 was removed by the Government in Committee. The gist of the new clause and the old clause is similar. The new schedule would tighten some of the drafting criticisms made by the Government about my noble Friend Lord McCarthy's clause 7. It is interesting to note that the Government always criticize the drafting of Opposition amendments which prove to be difficult. The Government know as well as I do that it is not the drafting which is the issue but the principle of the amendment. In this case, I hope that the Minister will spare us any criticisms about the Opposition's lack of ability in drafting the schedule and will concentrate upon the principle involved.
What we are trying to do can best be understood by a brief examination of the paragraphs in the new schedule. Paragraphs 1 and 2 make it unlawful to take any action,

including dismissal, against any employee who refuses to do work that, before the passing of the Bill, would not have been allowed. For instance, women in factories will not be dismissed because they refuse to work for more than 48 hours a week or nine hours a day — one would assume that a Government would be anxious to maintain such a provision—or outside the hours of 7 am and 8 pm. They will not have to work for more than four and a half hours without a break. Again, that is a civilised provision that one would assume that the Minister would be only too happy to accept. Such criteria are similar to those in the Mines and Quarries Act and the Factories Act. These unfair dismissal procedures will also apply to men working in the baking industry.
It is worth putting on record again what my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) said about the hours being worked in the baking industry. He talked in terms of 72-hour weeks and 12-day shifts. It is a legitimate fear of the men and women who work in the baking industry that once the protective legislation is repealed they will go back to the situation of 1954, before the passage of the Act, when they were at the mercy of ruthless competition, working awful hours in awful conditions. I suspect that they will be proved right. However, if, before the passage of the Bill, workers have agreed to work outside the prohibited hours, the clause and schedule will not apply. That is the effect of paragraph 3
Paragraph 4 dispenses with the usual criteria for qualification periods for unfair dismissal claims. Paragraphs 5 to 9 relate to other technicalities, compensation, and so on.
If any Tory Back Benchers, or even the Minister, have taken the trouble to read the new clause and schedule, they may have realised that there are certain parallels with a clause and schedule in the ill-fated Shops Bill. It is worth recalling that the infamous Shops Bill was defeated by people coming together from all parts of the House in voting down unnecessary and ill-considered legislation. I hope that all those Tory Back Benchers who abstained in the vote on new clause I will join us in the Lobby, particularly after I have drawn to their attention the fact that this clause and schedule are similar to those in the Shops Bill.
Apart from several certain technical alterations, the two clauses in the two schedules are virtually identical, and this is intentional. The schedule was introduced in the Shops Bill by the Government in the other place. Our contention is that the parallels between those working in shops and those affected by the Bill, and the effects of both Bills, are such that there should be no reason for the Government to oppose our new clause and schedule. I do not expect the Government to object to our proposition on spurious drafting grounds.
In Committee, Ministers constantly stated that the previous clause 7 would cause great difficulties for employers because they would have to cope with a two-tier work force—that is, those who were employed before the Bill became law and those who started work afterwards. However, the Government saw no problems with a two-tier work force in shops. The Minister in the other place, the noble Lord Glenarthur, said on the Shops Bill:
The reason why the Bill distinguishes between existing and future shopworkers is clear and straightforward. It will radically alter the position of existing shopworkers, many of


whom may have been attracted to shopwork in the first instance because they would not have to work on a Sunday. I can well understand the concern of existing shopworkers, and our proposals recognise their special position. But I do not believe that a similar consideration applies to new recruits". — [Official Report, House of Lords, 21 January 1986; Vol. 471, c. 223.]
The Government were content with a two-tier system as a result of the Shops Bill.
6.45 pm
The noble Lord Glenarthur was to renounce the sacred Tory doctrine on opposing protected conditions on three more occasions during the passage of the Shops Bill through the other place. Worse was to come a few weeks later when he announced a small concession to extend such rights to existing shopworkers who subsequently changed employers. In other words, workers who would have retained their rights and positions in a particular shop would have maintained those rights if they changed employers. This was done in response to a remark in Committee by Lord Wolfson who warned that failure to extend the right
could well lead to resentment and would not be helpful to good human relations in the trade.
Possibly more critical was his comment:
It could also have the effect, which is not intended, of prohibiting occupational change."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 February 1986; Vol. 471, c.177.]
The Government saw no parallels with the Sex Discrimination Bill. The problems of a two-tier work force were suddenly of paramount importance. The right not to be unfairly dismissed, so important in shops, was now an "outdated and outmoded restriction". That was what Lord Trefgarne said on 11 March. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary omitted to mention that one way to cope with a two-tier work force was to talk to and negotiate with it. He was not aware that there are already many two-tier work forces. Perhaps most importantly, he never mentioned that in almost all instances, after the Sex Discrimination Bill becomes law, there will be a two-tier work force. This will be because of the restrictions to which women are subjected, which will also cover young people. However, for the moment, as the Minister confirmed in his comments about section 114 of the Factories Act, yound people are still protected, and that will continue under the scope of the relevant sections of the Mines and Quarries Acts as well as the Factories Acts. In any case, when arguing about old clause 7, the then Parliamentary Secretary claimed that parallels with Sunday trading were not correct. Sunday working had never been a relevant prospect for women, whereas shift work had always been a prospect, with the possibility of a health and safety exemption. There is some truth in that, but it omits the fact that the work force had the chance of either protesting against prohibited work and/or bargaining for better conditions against an exemption order.
In 1984–85 the factory inspectorate granted more than 4,000 special exemption orders, covering 200,000 women, 80,000 of which were relevant to night work. An exemption order is hardly ever refused. This begs the question: why are we abolishing the process? When the Auld committee recommended in its report on Sunday trading the deregulation of shops, it also stated that this should occur within the framework of continued wages councils protection. As it said in paragraph 288:

We also urge that there should be proper enforcement of the Wages Council Orders, by an adequately staffed Wages Council Inspectorate.
In fact, the number of inspectors has decreased by one third since the Government came to office. The Wages Bill will reduce the total staff from 223 to 145, of whom only half are inspectors. This is directly relevant to the Sex Discrimination Bill as the wages inspectorate covers the baking industry. The Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954 is to be repealed and in the not too distant future we will see the net result of that. Has the Minister a date in mind for repeal of that Act?
There was quite a campaign throughout Britain by supporters and opponents of the Shops Bill. By February 1986 the Prime Minister had received 100 replies in favour of the Shops Bill and some 34,000 against. The parallels between the two Bills are obvious. Some 63 per cent. of shopworkers are women and the Sex Discrimination Bill affects women most directly. Opposition to the Shops Bill was divided between the effect of such legislation on society and its implications for the work force. Both effects apply equally to the current Bill.
Even in their particulars the Bills show similarities.Shopworkers could not work for more than five hours without a 20-minute break. For factory workers the limit is four and a half hours and they must have a break of half an hour. The arguments about similiarity are thus reduced to the degree of effect of repeal. However, the essence is the same. A previous Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee that the Government did not expect the Sex Discrimination Bill,
to prompt radical changes in hours immediately.
He also said:
There is no evidence to suggest that the removal of restrictions on women's hours of work will result in employers imposing radical changes in working patterns, forcing women to work at night or work unsocial hours against their will." —[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 26 June 1986; C. 93, 160.]
That begs the question: why go to so much trouble to repeal the relevant legislation? If employers will not take advantage of it, why are we wasting parliamentary time? There is evidence to support the belief that employers have been awaiting such a repeal. In recent years there has been a considerable increase in night hours being worked.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: In column 160 the Minister also said:
as the legislation stands, employers may obtain exemptions from the Health and Safety Executive allowing women to work otherwise prohibited hours and many employers take advantage of the opportunity".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 26 June 1986; c. 160.]
The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) shares my interest in the welfare of women. The career prospects of women are opening out in fields such as engineering and it would be a pity if we were to put a stumbling block in the way of their employment or promotion in such occupations.

Mr. Evans: I take the point made by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) and I appreciate her concern for the welfare of women. She has expressed such concern on a number of occasions. The class of women that she is talking about will not be strongly affected by this legislation. I agree that progress in the fields she mentions has been slow and not good enough, but the women referred to by the hon. Lady are not restricted by the terms of this Bill. Unfortunately, we are talking about


women who are doing the most menial of tasks and not about women who are moving into engineering and other such industries.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) raised a point with which we all sympathise, the need to encourage more women to enter industries such as engineering. The general context is recognised, but we are talking largely about new employment and about how to encourage new people into those industries. This clause would apply only to people already in the industry and would not cover new recruits to engineering.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) is right. We are talking about employees who are currently employed in areas where the Bill will repeal the protections that they enjoy. With the greatest respect, I suggest to the hon. Member for Lancaster that her fears are misplaced. I hope that she will support the new clause.
The Government do not seem to be sure of the effect of repeal. We are told on the one hand that the repeal of protective legislation will have little effect. On the other hand, we are told that it is a tremendous burden on employers who are clamouring for its removal. Government Ministers frequently tell us that. The Government's bottom line is that the repeal of such legislation will increase the number of jobs. That has been said most recently in the 1986 White Paper "Building Businesses…Not Barriers". On page 35, paragraph 7·1, it says in relation to health and safety and employment protection:
This legislation taken as a whole undoubtedly imposes significant costs on employers, and there is evidence that it has acted to reduce employment e.g. by discouraging some employers from recruiting.
We have not seen any evidence to justify that statement. Undoubtedly, it is true that in areas where there is health and safety protection legislation that is bound to impose costs upon the employers. The implication that could be taken from the paragraph is that to benefit employers we should reduce the health and safety protections offered to employees.
In March 1985 the then Secretary of State for Employment, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), introduced measures to take away the unfair dismissal protections from some 3·5 million workers. He said the action was justified because of the costs imposed on employers as a result of their involvement with tribunals in unfair dismissal cases. Such simplistic equations have been cited throughout the passage of the Bill. The major evidence seems to come from the United States of America and it is asserted that as it happened there it could happen here. I do not believe it happened there and I certainly do not think it will happen here without gravely affecting the workers concerned. A study undertaken by the Department of Management Studies for the Department of Employment gives the lie to that belief. The report of the study is entitled "Unfair dismissal Law and Employment Practice in the 1980s". It aimed to show whether employment protection practices introduced by the Government in 1979–80 and which related mainly to unfair dismissal and small employers had any impact on employment policies and practice.
Of the 81 companies surveyed, 65 per cent. employed 50 or fewer people and of those 35 per cent. employed 20

or fewer. That is the very type of business that the Government say is being hindered by such protective legislation. Only 4 per cent., 7 per cent. of the smallest firms, saw unfair dismissal claims as a barrier to recruitment. Only 8 per cent. mentioned unfair dismissal at all. The only relevant areas were in terms of casual and limited term work. No firm had altered its probationary period because the Government had extended the qualifying period for unfair dismissal, and only 5 per cent. of the firms had probationary periods as long as one year.
Some 68 per cent. of the firms had adopted disciplinary procedures in the mid-1970s as a response to legislation and the ACAS code of practice. Some 72 per cent. gave complying with the law and avoiding possible unfair dismissal claims as the main reasons for adopting disciplinary procedures. While 25 per cent. of larger firms quoted unfair dismissal law as a reason for reluctance to dismiss workers, just 7 per cent. of small employers did so. The study confirmed the findings of Daniel and Millward's "Workplace Industrial Relations in Britain 1983" and showed:
There was very little sign…that employment protection legislation was inhibiting industrial recovery or contributing to the high level of unemployment by discouraging employers from taking on new employees.
Thus, a study undertaken for the Government has shown that not only has employment protection legislation not hindered expansion, but that it has kept employment figures higher than they might otherwise be. It focused on the Government's favoured small business sector.
7 pm
The Government are eager to point out that they are following Equal Opportunities Commission's recommendations in repealing employment protection legislation for women, yet there were two dissenting voices in the EOC team that drew up the report. However, even its advocates believed that
It is necessary to ensure that those who may have their hours of work altered significantly so that they cannot stay in their employment are legally protected. Clearly this may well arise for women on the repeal or relaxation of the present legislation. Generally it will arise for workers (mainly women at the moment) with dependants. We consider that provision in this area is essential and we recommend the introduction of a code of practice on hours of work, and specific legal provision for women in employment now who would be seriously affected by a change in the legislation.
The Government have paid no attention to this part of the EOC's recommendations. In the other place, the former clause 8 was added in Committee. That excellent clause, which introduced a code of practice, was removed by the Government. Furthermore, the former clause 7 covered the legislative requirements.
In its briefing on the Sex Discrimination Bill the Equal Opportunities Commission stated that these two clauses
give effect to the Commission's overall view in a way that a simple repeal of the existing protective provisions failed to do.
I do not need to remind the House that the Government established the Equal Opportunities Commission to comment on and try to improve employment protection for women, yet when important recommendations are made by the EOC the Government choose to ignore them.
The Government removed both of those clauses in Committee. Our new clause 2 attempts to put the substance of the EOC's recommendations back into the Bill. However, the remedies contained in new clause 2 will be limited in effect. Only 5 per cent. of successful


applications in unfair dismissal cases result in reinstatement. There is no legal aid for employees who appear before tribunals, although employers are invariably legally represented. Further, the Government have announced that they intend to charge employees £25 even to go before a tribunal. That will be refunded only if an employee wins his case.
I ask the Minister to look again at the imposition of a £25 charge before anybody can appear before an industrial tribunal. I thought that the Secretary of State and the Paymaster General did not want to create a situation in which people would not he prepared to go before a tribunal simply because they dared not risk losing £25. That would be disgraceful in 1986 and the Ministers responsible for the suggestion should be ashamed of themselves. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider again the imposition of a £25 charge. I suspect that it is another attack on the poorest and lowest paid workers. They will be denied the right to seek protection before an industrial tribunal. People will be deterred from taking their cases before an industrial tribunal.
As it stands at the moment, the law might allow people to be unfairly dismissed for refusing to work in what formerly were prohibited conditions. However, it is subject to the reasonableness of the case and to an assortment of qualifying criteria.
That leads to the question of poorly paid people being prepared to risk £25. New clause 2 would make dismissal for such a refusal automatically unfair, regardless of the length of time that had been worked.
The Government may say that the opposition to industrial tribunals in "Building Businesses…Not Barriers" can be used to justify the £25 charge. Even if the Minister is unable to answer tonight, I hope that he will look again at this question and, if necessary, make representations to his right hon. Friends, one of whom, the Paymaster General and Minister for Employment, is sitting next to him, He will, I hope, have heard what I have said.
According to page 36 of "Building Businesses…Not Barriers", most of the problems encountered by employers over employment protection legislation relate to the cost and management effort required to deal with ill-founded claims to industrial tribunals, which also result in considerable public expenditure, although they may cost the applicant little or nothing. The Government do not appear to have allowed this to worry them, since they have taken Central Arbitration Committee jurisdiction away from collective agreements. By their own admission, this places greater emphasis upon industrial tribunal hearings as the main means of redress.
I believe that I have made a reasonable case for the protection of workers, many of whom are in the lowest paid industries. The protection that has been afforded to them by Parliament over a number of years is to be swept away by this legislation that masquerades under the title of Sex Discrimination. I urge the Minister to consider what I have said. I hope that he will be prepared to accept the proposition that workers should be entitled to protection. If not, I shall have to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support me in the Lobby and to vote for new clause 2.

Mr. Hoyle: Although a reasonable case has been put before the Minister, I am afraid that he has disappointed us. His mind seems to work in the same way as that of previous Ministers, and it resulted in a number of

abstentions. The Government were nearly defeated because of the weakness of the Minister's reply and because of his lack of flexibility. I am always prepared to forgive sinners and there may be a chance for the Minister to think again.
This is a reasonable clause. It should be illegal for any worker to be dismissed for refusing to work during any of the periods when he does not need to work because of the protection afforded to him by the previous legislation. Women should not be dismissed because they refuse to work more than 48 hours a week. Indeed, nobody should have to work for more than 48 hours a week, or for more than nine hours a day. Where are we coming to if we ask anybody to work for more than nine hours a day?
However, women will have to work for 48 hours a week if this protection is removed from them. Furthermore, they will have to work before 7 am and after 8 pm, and they will also have to work for more than four and a half hours without a break. I am sure that the Minister would not want to have to work for more than four and a half hours without a break. Indeed, accountants have never been known to work for more than four and a half hours, although accountancy is a very lucrative profession. The protection that is afforded is very bad indeed, and it has to be coupled with low pay.
The Government should not worsen the working conditions of the low paid. They must be protected by legislation against unfair dismissal if they refuse to accept any worsening of their working conditions.
We do not want to hear the argument that has been advanced in previous debates that this would lead to two-tier employment and bureaucracy and that it would be very difficult to enforce. The Minister is nodding his head. His notes have been prepared for him, unfortunately, by the same civil servant who prepared the notes for his predecessor. The Minister is known to be a man of originality and to have original thoughts. I ask him not to accept the brief that was given to his predecessor by his civil servant. I ask him to look again at this question and to try to be flexible. Why should the conditions of these people be made any worse?
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) said that when the Shops Bill was discussed the Government would have been quite pleased to introduce two-tier conditions of employment for those already in employment, whose conditions would have been made worse by having to work on Sundays, and for those who were new entrants to the industry.
Some of the worst-paid people in the country already work long hours. They need to be protected against working 48 hours a week or nine hours a day. Such protection is reasonable. I hope that the Minister will think again about this.
I hope that the Minister does not say that there is bureaucratic pressure and that the legislation would be difficult to administer. We have already given the parallel with the Shops Bill so that that overcomes that argument. I also hope that he does not argue about the cost to employers and about the fact that it would mean people going to industrial tribunals. I heard him use such arguments before he became a Member of the House, but they did not ring true then and they do not ring true today. I want the Minister to look at the other side of the coin —the protection of the employee. I know that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) has a great


interest in women's affairs and I am sure that she would not want to see women's hours and conditions worsen. I hope that she will join us in the Lobby.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I have done it before.

Mr. Hoyle: I know that the hon. Lady has done it before and that is why I know that my comments will not fall on stony ground. I know that the hon. Lady is open to conversion. There is not much hope of the Minister joining us. We are really talking about the protection of some of the lowest paid employees in some of the worst conditions.
Whatever the Minister does, I hope that he will reconsider the £25 payment which will be necessary before a person can go to an industrial tribunal. We are talking about very low-paid employees who are often the only breadwinner in a family and they could not afford £25. I am sure that for the Minister and his colleagues £25 is nothing.

Mr. Mikardo: We are not only talking about £25. A person will have to take a day off work and lose a day's pay. In some parts of the country, people may have to travel considerable distances and pay fares.

Mr. Hoyle: That is a good point. If the Minister cannot give us a decision tonight, I hope that he will at least promise that he will look at the imposition of the £25 payment.
I hope that the Minister will take on board this reasonable new clause and the new schedule, that he will say that there must be protection for those in industry against worsening conditions and that he will consider the introduction of the £25 payment for those who want to go to an industrial tribunal.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) rightly drew attention to the inconsistencies of the Government's approach in this area. They tell us that the existing legislation is a major burden on industry and yet its removal will have no effect on those at the place of work. Gerry Dowds of the Forum of Private Business commented on the Government's proposals. He is a representative of the small business sector, the sector which the Government claim is most affected by the present legislation. He said:
I've not met one small business man who has had one good thing to say about dismantling the employment protection. We do not want second-class employees and second-class customers".
That is the voice of the small business sector. It does not want to see the present legislative protection swept away and it does not want to face competition from the cowboy employers who will drive down conditions in the industry. That is why, even if we cannot maintain present employment protection, which is what some of my hon. Friends would want, we at least want to offer that protection to those who have already started their career and who follow their working lives on the basis of those protections.
7.15 pm
I recently visited a factory in my constituency. It was a print works which had just switched to two-shift working. Most of the women in the work force who had traditionally worked days are happy with their conditions. They said that they were concerned when the management

first asked them to consider a change but, having done it, they were happy. Nobody on the Labour Benches would want to deny them their right to work for a higher income. All of that is allowable under the present employment legislation. However, there were one or two women—this was acknowledged by the women in the factory—who had had great difficulties and who had had to make extraordinary arrangements for their families. They had eventually fallen into line for the good of everybody else. Clearly there are circumstances in which individuals would be penalised by a change in employment conditions.
It is often the woman who bears the biggest burden in rearing children. Certainly, among my friends and acquaintances it is often the woman who is responsible for collecting children from school. That may be something that should change. However, that is the position today. Therefore, working conditions for many women in the area in which I live have to relate to the family practices and activities that they are used to. It is no good saying that in the best of worlds things would be different. Of course they would. However, we do not live in a world in which we can guarantee employment for all those who want it. In the Greater Manchester area, many women are the sole breadwinner and are forced into low-paid work and into conditions where working practices make life difficult for them. If we take away the present protections that legislation provides, we enforce potentially worse working conditions for those whose lifestyle cannot easily be changed. However, they will have to accommodate those conditions at the cost of the children and their family life. That is what the Opposition are trying to prevent.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) made it clear that the new schedule and clause draw heavily from what the Government proposed in order to buy off their own Back Benchers in terms of the Sunday trading legislation. The Government have already sanctioned certain things as being acceptable and workable employment proposals even though they would create a differential between existing employees and future employees. As every hon. Member knows, almost every employer up and down the country already operates a two-tier working system. Very few manufacturing industries operate the same working conditions for clerical grades as they do for shop floor grades. That is a matter for industrial history. There is no great difficulty in operating the two-tier system that we have heard is such a great disadvantage.
We were told in Committee that the differences between Sunday trading and the proposals in this Bill were fundamental because Sunday work was massively different. However, the thrust of the Government's proposals on Sunday trading was that work on a Sunday was to be treated as the norm. There are Opposition Members who think differently from that and who feel that we should build in protections. Nevertheless, we also recognise that there should be protection for those people who historically have not had to operate by working shifts and working under difficult terms of employment.
This is not a major dismantling of what the Government propose. My hon. Friends and I view it as a second-best to kicking out most of the contentious sections of the Bill. It is a modest reform which will limit the damage caused by the Bill because it does not offer even the minimum protection for people in work.
The £25 proposal will hit in particular areas such as that which I represent where the employed are paid low wages.


The proposal will restrict access to industrial tribunals and create a two-tier society which we want to avoid. People who are rich can afford to use the law but others cannot. The poor are already denied access to the courts unless they can obtain legal aid. If we impose an extra burden, poor people will be denied access to industrial tribunals, which should be open to those who need them, not just to those who can afford them.

Mr. Lee: The proposal to require a deposit of £25 to bring an industrial tribunal case is in a recent White Paper, "Building Businesses…Not Barriers". I emphasise that it is only a proposal at this stage and it is not affected by the Bill.
I am glad to say that my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General, who is almost as broad-minded as I am, is with us this evening. He and I have taken on board all the points that have been made by the Opposition. As the Opposition have explained, these amendments will establish new rights for those employees who stand to be affected by the repeals in clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill.
I emphasise that these rights would apply to protected workers however short the period of their employment, whether or not they have reached normal retirement age and however few hours they work each week. These provisions therefore go far beyond the normal protection against unfair dismissal afforded employees by current legislation.
Furthermore, protected workers can carry their rights with them if they change employers, even if they move out of and then back into work which is subject to protected conditions.
It should also be noted that these amendments provide for commencement of the new rights at Royal Assent—not on the dates when the repeal of provisions in clauses 7 and 8 come into operation.
Effectively, the amendments seek to reinstate the provisions of the clause dealing with the protection of existing conditions which was inserted in another place and removed in Standing Committee—although they go in certain respects rather further and are accordingly even less welcome to the Government. The arguments deployed against that clause apply with even greater force in consideration of the amendments.
Fundamentally, we arc opposed to the amendments because in our view the provisions are unnecessary and will certainly have grave and significant drawbacks in their effects on employers. We are not talking only about the two-tier work force as between clerical and shop floor workers, as the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) described it. Employers would have a two-tier work force: those who, in effect, retain the restrictions on hours because they have these new rights and those who do not because they have agreed to specific changes or because they are new recruits who, at the date of the Bill's Royal Assent, were not in jobs subject to the schedule's protected conditions elsewhere. This would significantly decrease an employer's flexibility of operation, increase his administrative costs and impair overall efficiency.
The amendments would effectively mean the retention for protected employees of the whole mass of complex and detailed current restrictions, none of which is particularly suited to today's conditions, and they would continue to operate for many years to come, until the last of the current generation of workers had left the labour market for good — in perhaps 50 years' time. It needs little

enough imagination to guess the chaos, confusion and uncertainty for employers and employees in deciding which of the multitude of restrictions governing hours and overtime, meal breaks, starting and finishing times, shifts and night work apply to whom and exactly how.

Mr. Hoyle: Will the Minister please explain why he thinks that nonsense is suggested when the Government were prepared to introduce such a proposal in the Shops Bill?

Mr. Lee: Those who work in the manufacturing industries realise that exemption orders could apply that did not apply to the shops legislation. In that we were dealing with men and women, whereas today we are talking only about women.

Mr. Mikardo: As the House knows, I am not a Christian, but many of my constituents are. Judging by my correspondence some of them are very devout, one might almost describe them as fundamentalist Christians. If a woman constituent were required as a result of the Bill to work on a Sunday and she said, "I shall not work on a Sunday because my faith does not allow it," and she was fired, should that be regarded as a fair dismissal?

Mr. Lee: I should like notice of that question. I should not like to answer it at the Dispatch Box at present.
The current legislation permits exceptions and relaxations in certain circumstances, but it would not be possible for an employer to get an exemption from these new rights. So in future he would find himself less able to cope with changes than he was before this Bill's introduction. The restrictions would have become well-nigh immutable. Surely this cannot be the direction we want to take when it is vital that the prevailing climate should he as favourable towards enterprise as we can make it?
After Royal Assent, but before implementation of the repeals, employers would have the worst of both worlds, since this clause would come into effect immediately. As we do not intend to repeal the provisions affecting women's nightworking before early 1988, this would significantly compound the difficulties of this clause for employers.
What is more, the provisions of this clause are likely to be counter-productive for those supposedly benefiting. The transferability of the rights from employer to employer may make the employment of those wishing to exercise the right much less attractive than the recruitment of entirely new blood or those willing to accept changes. Protected employees may find that the so-called protection is in fact more a liability. We have not exaggerated the problems of the two-tier work force as the Opposition have argued during the course of this and earlier debates.
The Opposition believe that employees will face difficulties once the restrictions on hours are lifted. But there are already safeguards to the existing employee whose employer capriciously changes working hours. In these circumstances, a woman working in a factory required for the first time to work new hours which are at present prohibited could under present employment protection legislation make a complaint of unfair dismissal to an industrial tribunal if dismissed for refusal to work these hours providing she had the necessary qualifying period. Similarly, she would be able to make a claim of constructive unfair dismissal if she felt forced to terminate


her employment because the employer sought to change her terms and conditions of employment by making her work hours which proved difficult or impossible for her. It would of course be for the industrial tribunal to judge the arguments in the case.
We cannot accept that it would be practicable or sensible to give the further and special protection provided by this clause to the 1·5 million or so currently restricted by the legislation that we are repealing. The repeals will simply put them on a par with the remaining 20 million or so employees in the work force.
To sum up, we see no need or justification for the amendments. The burdens that they would undoubtedly impose would run entirely counter to our aim of encouraging business to thrive and prosper and would ultimately undermine the interests of those whom, according to its advocates, this clause is aimed particularly to protect. Despite the fears expressed by the proponents of these amendments, there is no evidence of exploitation of the 7·5 million women working in other sectors where there are no restrictions on hours. Women, whatever their occupation, should have the same right to work hours that best suit them and their employers. There is no justification for treating one sector differently from another.
For all these reasons, I strongly press the House to reject the new clause.

Mr. Evans: That was another disappointing reply to a disgraceful debate. Once again, apart from the reply by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, there has been silence from the Tory Benches, as is always the case when we discuss such issues. I have no doubt that, when we consider the Financial Services Bill next week, the Government Benches will be packed as Government Members come in here to defend and promote their financial interests in the City of London. We know where the interests of the Tory party lie. That has been proved by the fact that in this debate, once again, we had a disappointing reply from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. Next week Tory Members will defend their interests in the City of London, whereas tonight they are treating the poorest paid workers in the land with complete indifference.
I welcome the fact—I am sure that people outside the House will welcome it—that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General and Minister for Employment have taken notice of what my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) have said about an employee having to pay £25 to appear before an industrial tribunal. I ask them to bear in mind the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). A worker attending a tribunal could be faced with not only a £25 charge but the loss of a day's pay and travelling expenses. He could forfeit between half and two thirds of his weekly wage to take a case to an industrial tribunal. I hope that they will bear that in mind when they consider implementing the proposal for a £25 fee. If the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has not received considerable representations on the subject, I am certain that the Paymaster General has

received a number of submissions, none of which supports the proposition to charge £25. I note with interest what has been said, and it is helpful.
I am sure that the Minister appreciates that, at the outset of the debate, I said that I accept and acknowledge the weakness that Oppositions have when introducing new clauses and, especially, new schedules. Most of the Minister's defence of his position amounted to nitpicking at the lack of the Opposition's drafting skills. The Minister has not answered the charge that my hon. Friends and I have laid against him—that, by the Government's own volition, a two-tier work force would have been created under the Shops Bill. We have pointed out that there would have been no difficulty in operating a two-tier system, because that is what the Government said when they introduced the new clause and the schedule to the Shops Bill. It has been alleged that a two-tier work force would decrease employees' efficiency. It is a pity that we did not hear more about that at that time. I suspect that the Minister will acknowledge that the Government had their back against the wall with that Bill and were therefore prepared to offer concessions all round. We have drawn one of the concessions out of that Bill and have sought to add it to this Bill. I am bound to tell the Minister that he has failed the test that we put him to tonight on that proposition.
I had hoped that the Government would have recognised that workers who are about to have changes made to their terms of employment and conditions, which will be imposed on them arbitrarily by their employers, should have some protection in law. The fact that the Government have refused to go along that line shows quite clearly that, once again, we must go into the Lobby. I urge my hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby in voting for new clause 2 and the schedule.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 203.

Division No. 290]
[7.33 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Clay, Robert


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Alton, David
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Anderson, Donald
Corbett, Robin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ashdown, Paddy
Craigen, J. M.


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Crowther, Stan


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Beith, A. J.
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)


Bell, Stuart
Deakins, Eric


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dewar, Donald


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Dobson, Frank


Bidwell, Sydney
Dormand, Jack


Blair, Anthony
Douglas, Dick


Boyes, Roland
Dubs, Alfred


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Duffy, A. E. P.


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Eadie, Alex


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Eastham, Ken


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Ewing, Harry


Bruce, Malcolm
Fatchett, Derek


Buchan, Norman
Faulds, Andrew


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Campbell, Ian
Fisher, Mark


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Flannery, Martin


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael






Foster, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Foulkes, George
Nellist, David


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
O'Brien, William


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
O'Neill, Martin


Godman, Dr Norman
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Golding, Mrs Llin
Park, George


Gould, Bryan
Parry, Robert


Gourlay, Harry
Patchett, Terry


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Pavitt, Laurie


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Pendry, Tom


Harman, Ms Harriet
Pike, Peter


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Heffer, Eric S.
Prescott, John


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Radice, Giles


Home Robertson, John
Randall, Stuart


Howells, Geraint
Redmond, Martin


Hoyle, Douglas
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Robertson, George


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Rogers, Allan


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Janner, Hon Greville
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Rowlands, Ted


John, Brynmor
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kirkwood, Archy
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Lamond, James
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Leadbitter, Ted
Skinner, Dennis


Leighton, Ronald
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Soley, Clive


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Spearing, Nigel


Livsey, Richard
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Stott, Roger


Loyden, Edward
Strang, Gavin


McCartney, Hugh
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


McGuire, Michael
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


McKelvey, William
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Tinn, James


McNamara, Kevin
Torney, Tom


McTaggart, Robert
Wainwright, R.


McWilliam, John
Wallace, James


Madden, Max
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Marek, Dr John
Wareing, Robert


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Weetch, Ken


Martin, Michael
Welsh, Michael


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
White, James


Maxton, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Maynard, Miss Joan
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Meacher, Michael
Winnick, David


Meadowcroft, Michael
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Michie, William



Mikardo, Ian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Mr. Don Dixon and


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Mr. Allen McKay.


NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Ancram, Michael
Churchill, W. S.


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Batiste, Spencer
Clegg, Sir Walter


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Cockeram, Eric


Blackburn, John
Cope, John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cranborne, Viscount


Body, Sir Richard
Dickens, Geoffrey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dicks, Terry


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dorrell, Stephen


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dunn, Robert


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Durant, Tony


Bright, Graham
Favell, Anthony


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Forman, Nigel


Browne, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bruinvels, Peter
Forth, Eric


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Budgen, Nick
Franks, Cecil


Burt, Alistair
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)





Fry, Peter
Mates, Michael


Gale, Roger
Mather, Carol


Galley, Roy
Maude, Hon Francis


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Gow, Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gower, Sir Raymond
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Grant, Sir Anthony
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Greenway, Harry
Moate, Roger


Gregory, Conal
Monro, Sir Hector


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Moynihan, Hon C.


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Neale, Gerrard


Grist, Ian
Needham, Richard


Ground, Patrick
Nelson, Anthony


Grylls, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Norris, Steven


Hampson, Dr Keith
Ottaway, Richard


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Harris, David
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Harvey, Robert
Pattie, Geoffrey


Haselhurst, Alan
Pollock, Alexander


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Porter, Barry


Hayes, J.
Portillo, Michael


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Powell, William (Corby)


Hayward, Robert
Powley, John


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Heddle, John
Price, Sir David


Henderson, Barry
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hickmet, Richard
Raffan, Keith


Hicks, Robert
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hind, Kenneth
Rathbone, Tim


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hordern, Sir Peter
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Rost, Peter


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Rowe, Andrew


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Ryder, Richard


Irving, Charles
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Key, Robert
Shersby, Michael


King, Rt Hon Tom
Silvester, Fred


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knowles, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Knox, David
Speed, Keith


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Speller, Tony


Lang, Ian
Spencer, Derek


Latham, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Squire, Robin


Lawrence, Ivan
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lee, John (Pendle)
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stern, Michael


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lilley, Peter
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lord, Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lyell, Nicholas
Taylor, John (Solihull)


McCrindle, Robert
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Temple-Morris, Peter


Macfarlane, Neil
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Maclean, David John
Thurnham, Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Trippier, David


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Twinn, Dr Ian


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


McQuarrie, Albert
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Madel, David
Waddington, David


Major, John
Waller, Gary


Malins, Humfrey
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Malone, Gerald
Watson, John


Marland, Paul
Watts, John


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)






Whitney, Raymond



Wiggin, Jerry
Tellers for the Noes:


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Peter Lloyd and


Woodcock, Michael
Mr. David Lightbown.


Yeo, Tim

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 4

EQUAL CONDITIONS REGULATIONS

`(1) In this section the relevant enactments are the provisions of the Hours of Employment (Conventions) Act 1936, the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, the Baking Hours of Work Act 1954 and the Factories Act 1961 (which are mentioned in sections 7 and 8 below and in Part III of the Schedule to this Act, and any subordinate legislation made under or by reference to those provisions.
(2) Subject to the conditions in subsection (3) below, the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend any provision in the relevant enactments, or any part thereof, so as to guarantee equal conditions to women and men with such consequential or transitional amendments as seem to him appropriate.
(3) The conditions are—

(a) Before the coming into force of sections 7 and 8 of this Act, the Secretary of State shall, after consultation with the appropriate Trade Unions, the Equal Opportunities Commission and employers, issue codes of practice in relation to the relevant enactments with reference to—

(i) full consultation with the workforce before any substantial change in hours of work are introduced;
(ii) provision in relation to childcare;
(iii) provision of a safe mode of transportation for persons required to travel to work at unsocial hours;
(iv) provision wherever possible for flexible working hours or a choice of shifts, in order to minimise the disruption to employees' domestic obligations.

(b) (i) Whenever the Secretary of State proposes to issue a code of practice under this section he shall prepare and publish a draft code, shall consider any representations made to him about the draft and may modify the draft accordingly;
(ii) The Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of any code of practice prepared by him under this section;
(iii) No order under paragraph (b) shall have effect until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament;
(iv) An order bringing a code of practice into operation may contain such transitional provisions or savings as appear to the Secretary of State necessarily or expedient in connection with the code of practice thereby brought into operation;
(v) The Secretary of State may from time to time revise the whole or part of the code of practice to which this section applies and issue that revised code; and the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply (with appropriate modifications) to such a revised code as they apply to the first issue of a code. —[Ms. Richardson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Ms. Jo Richardson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following:
New clause 6—Provision of facilities for women—

'In subsection 35(1) of the 1975 Act, after paragraph (c), there shall be inserted the following paragraph:
(d) the provision of transport or other facilities or services for women are provided for the purpose of ensuring personal safety.".'.
Amendment No. 8, in clause 8, page 7, line 40, at end insert
'on a date not less than two years after the day on which this Act is passed, until which date the Secretary of State shall continue to consult with the Equal Opportunities Commission and other interested bodies concerning the future of the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954.'.
Amendment No. 12, in clause 10, page 8, line 25, after `to' insert
'section (Equal conditions regulations) above and'
Amendment No. 13, in page 8 line 28, after 'appoint', insert
`which day shall not be less than 12 months after this Act comes into force,'.

Ms. Richardson: Following the Opposition's defeat on new clause 2, we move on in the hope that something will emerge from this group of clauses and amendments. I am pleased to welcome the Paymaster General to our debate, I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will reply.
New clause 4 provides the House with an opportunity to limit the damage which the Government wrought upon the Bill in Committee by removing the amendments which were made in another place. Two of the amendments which so offended the Government sought, first, to provide an alternative to the blanket repeal of all-protective legislation, which would be the effect of the Bill as it stands. The amendment moved by Lord Wedderburn sought to establish a mechanism for equal protection orders governing hours of work and other working conditions in the manufacturing sector and the baking industry that are presently covered by the so-called discriminatory legislation. Secondly, the Government were offended by the amendment of Baroness Platt of Writtle, which sought to place a duty on employers to follow the code of practice governing changes in hours of work. It provided procedures for drawing up a code of practice which would provide guidance for employers seeking to make significant changes in the hours of work and working conditions of their women employees and safeguard the health, safety and well-being of the work force, especially the members of it with domestic and family responsibilities.
Both amendments received cross-party and cross-Bench support. Throughout the debate in another place, Baroness Plan, who occupies a place on the Government Benches and is the present chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission, stressed the importance of the amendment to bring the Bill into line with the EOC report entitled "Health and Safety Legislation: should we distinguish between men and women?" The document was published by the commission as far back as 1979. Baroness Plan was supported strongly by my noble Friend, Baroness Lockwood, the former chair of the commission and the person who was the chair at the time that the report was commissioned and published. There was support also from Baroness Turner, who is a commissioner.
The new clause seeks to implement some of the substance and spirit of the Lords amendments and the recommendations of the EOC report. In addition, it offers the House the opportunity to follow the example of


countries such as Norway and Sweden, where sensible and healthy restrictions have been introduced to cover hours of work and unsocial hours of work for both men and women. Another example is West Germany, where proposals for outlawing permanent night work in the baking industry have received the support of the Chancellor.
When I asked the Minister in Committee for his comments on Chancellor Kohl's support for bakers, the Minister who at that time was in charge of the Bill was able only to say that examples from other countries with detailed controls could always be found. He did not try to meet the argument that other countries have shown some sense in their approach to these matters.
Subsections (1) and (2) of the new clause give the Secretary of State power to bring forward orders made by statutory instrument which amend the provisions of the Hours of Employment (Conventions) Act 1936, the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954 and the Factories Act 1961 and any subordinate legislation made under or by reference to such legislation for equal provisions for men and women.
The new clause will not obstruct the removal of any outmoded, outdated or unnecessarily restrictive legislation about which we heard so much tonight when the Minister referred to "Building Businesses…Not Barriers". New clause 4 will remove discriminatory legislation by levelling up and extending the legislation to cover men, rather than by levelling it down across the board, as will inevitably be the case if the Bill remains unamended. Subsection (3) of the new clause, upon which subsections (1) and (2) are conditional, provides a crucial safeguard for the workers whose conditions and hours of work will be affected by the amended legislation. With the defeat of new clauses 1 and 2, the matter assumes greater importance. Subsection (3) will be welcomed by all responsible employers, and also by the Equal Opportunities Commission and the TUC, because it makes provision for a code of practice providing guidance for employers and some protection for employees who may he forced to seek a tribunal ruling on unfair dismissal. Moreover, such a code of practice, encompassing factors not obviously or normally covered by the health and safety Executive and relevant legislation, will provide a welcome model for all employers in both the public and private sectors where unsocial hours are already the norm because they provide essential services, which the Minister frequently reminded us about in Committee. At present, although they are heavily dominated by women, there is no protection.
The new clause provides for full consultation with the work force, a practice which should always be encouraged, no matter what the circumstances. Some hon. Members may not be aware that the provision in the Bill to repeal section 97 of the Factories Act 1961 removes from the Secretary of State the power to ascertain the opinions of the work force if an application for double day shift working is made by an employer. It also repeals the power of the Health and Safety inspectorate to satisfy itself that the majority of the work force consents to substantial changes in hours of work; or that suitable transport and other facilities such as refreshments are available. My hon. Friends and I believe that the right to consultation and the consideration of such matters must be reinstated. I appeal to the Paymaster General to think carefully about the need to replace some of the protection removed from the Bill during its passage.
We should remind ourselves of the results of the EOC survey, which provided the basis for its 1979 report. The report is the only evidence that is available in this area and the Government have been unable to produce any substantiated evidence, other than that put forward in another place or in Committee, that there is any reason to believe that circumstances have changed sufficiently, except for the worse, to undermine the report's findings. The EOC survey was carried out among a representative sample of 600 women within the sectors that would be affected by the changes in legislation and repeals which the Bill seeks to make. It paid particular attention to double day shift working and night work. It is true that women were in favour of removing legislation discriminating between men and women with regard to double day shift working. The survey found that 60 per cent. of the women were in agreement with that but only 40 per cent. agreed to the removal of restrictions on night work. More importantly, two thirds of the women said that they would definitely never work double day shifts or do weekend work after Saturday lunchtime. Hon. Members will surely understand this. Four fifths of the women said that they would never consider night work. That is a very high proportion.
As the report says, "quite sensibly" women were unwilling to speculate or express an attitude of either general approval or disapproval of shift work and of unsocial working hours without knowing the circumstances of the women involved. Invariably that was expressed as concern over domestic and family responsibilities, the very issue that the Government seek to dismiss as the proper concern of either Government or employers when proposals for substantial changes in working hours and other employment conditions are made. As one might expect, child care was a major concern and was regarded as a prerequisite for any consideration of shift working for women.
The new clause seeks to do nothing more than provide a mechanism whereby the House, employers, the appropriate trade unions, the EOC and, by no means last in importance, the work force concerned, especially women, can draw up, together and by consultation. fair and equal working conditions for both women and men. In adopting that approach, we should be endorsing the recommendations of the EOC, which stated that where health, safety and welfare demanded it, legislation should be applied equally to women and men; that there should be a transitional protection for women already working, but who would have to resign if significant changes in their hours of work were introduced,; that there should be a code of practice covering working hours; that legislation on rest breaks, meal breaks and public holidays should be extended to men; and that women should be brought. within the legislation that at present governs only men in the baking industry. While women put their point of view in the survey, they did not do so in a totally selfish manner. The survey showed that women wanted protection to be extended to their male counterparts at work.
New clause 6 is very short and relates to the provision under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 of transport or of other facilities or services for women to ensure their personal safety. Many references have been made to transport. I do not think that the Paymaster General was in the Chamber when hon. Members raised the issue of the provision of transport for women who might have to work late at night. There was an interesting exchange between


my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) and the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) about whether since deregulation transport has been better or worse.
There is now considerable evidence that women are constrained by fears about their personal safety at night. The House of Commons is a male-dominated place. Most of the males in it have wives, daughters, mothers and cousins who are female—

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: We all have mothers.

Ms. Richardson: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I meant mothers who experience that problem. If hon. Members went home and asked their wives, their mothers and sisters — they may already have discussed it with them—whether they would like to go out at night or use public transport on their own, they would probably say no. I dare say that Conservative Members' wives and female relatives do not always have access to a car, although there may be more access than among working class women. However, women depend much more on public transport than men because fewer of them hold driving licences and fewer have access to a car, yet there is growing evidence that women do not use public transport as much as they would like, especially at night, because of the fear of harassment and assault.
8 pm
That is not an imagined threat in the mind of weak women; it is the experience of many women who have to use transport, or who should be able to do so. Strangely enough, the available statistical evidence demonstrates that most violent attacks in public places are perpetrated by men against men. The British Crime Survey and other surveys have demonstrated, however, that women are substantially more fearful for their personal safety than men. That applies at all ages.
As many as 41 per cent. of women in inner city areas feel "very unsafe" walking alone at night in their neighbourhoods. A survey on women's transport needs carried out by the Greater London council before its abolition found that 63 per cent. of the women surveyed said that they avoided going out alone after dark. In the context of the Bill and new clause 6, which would make provision in the Sex Discrimination Act for women-only transport to ensure women's personal safety, it is worth while for the House to consider for a few minutes the findings of the GLC survey because, as far as I know, it is the only one that has been conducted into women's transport needs, getting women's reactions.
The GLC transport committee, at the request of the women's committee, surveyed a representative sample of 900 women—300 more than the EOC took as a sample, so it is a fair sample. The committee found that only 37 per cent. of women feel safe travelling at night by bus, only 17 per cent. feel safe at night on the Underground and only 16 per cent. feel safe at night on British Rail. Ten per cent. of the women had suffered serious personal attacks. Over 10 per cent. had suffered from threats and harassment and 30 per cent. knew of other women who had suffered such incidents. Half the incidents occurred in the streets, 20 per cent. on trains, 10 per cent. at stations and nearly 15 per.

cent at bus stops or on buses, so nearly half the incidents occurred while women were using or waiting to use public transport.
An equally worrying pattern emerged with regard to women's reluctance to report incidents. Only 40 per cent. of all the attacks had been reported. None of the Asian or Afro-Caribbean women who had been attacked reported the incident, and only half the white women did so. There was a fear not only of the attack but of being regarded as stupid — goodness knows how one feels in those circumstances. Those women did not go to the police or a member of staff at the station to report the incident.
Twenty per cent. of the white and Afro-Caribbean women agreed strongly with the statement:
I don't go out on my own after dark.
That response rose to 40 per cent. for Asian women. Therefore, we must look carefully at the need of ethnic minority women living among us to involve themselves in the community and working life, and our obligation to provide safe transport and access for them.
Buses were estimated to be the safest mode of transport, but only if a bus conductor or conductress was on board. The whole question of one-person-operated buses is causing increasing concern for women and, indeed, elderly people, but here we are talking about working women. The Underground came lowest in the estimates of safety. I have a car and use it, but I use the Underground and buses as well from time to time. I am much more frightened to be on the Underground late at night, or to be alone on an Underground station late at night, than waiting for a bus. I do not know why. The long, dimly lit, empty corridors and platforms are daunting, perhaps to men as well as women.
A total of 82 per cent. of the women surveyed wanted alarm systems on all trains, which would provide direct contact with the guard without necessarily stopping the train. They all wanted guards on the trains. British Rail was heavily criticised for continuing to use the old single carriage trains, which were regarded as extremely hazardous. Some 72 per cent. of women thought that the removal of staff from lesser used stations and the trend towards replacing people with machines made the situation for women travelling on public transport worse. As I said, one-person-operated buses or trains, particularly the Underground, are very unpopular from the viewpoint of safety and convenience.
Recently the Government encouraged. and even forced, a fundamental shift in priorities in the public transport system and local government, which has exacerbated the difficulties and increased the dangers faced by women, especially when travelling at night. Public transport and local authorities have been forced to operate as businesses rather than essential services. Their priority is to be cost-effective, a cost-effectiveness that no longer includes consideration of user safety or assistance to passengers.
I know that the Paymaster General cannot answer this question as it is not his responsibility, but I should like to know whether in the past year or two during the preparation of the legislation that affected public transport any women passengers were consulted, or whether they were simply told afterwards what the position would be.
Therefore, it seems in the Government's mind that women's safety will remain one of the last on a long list of cost-effective measures, so we believe that the Government should take some action. It would begin to


redress the balance if the Government accepted new clause 6 and wrote into the Bill a provision allowing for women-only transport. In recent years, there have been some women-only transport initiatives, which have been developed to meet precisely the problems to which I have referred. The repeal of the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954, as contained in the Bill, and the steadily declining public transport system, together with the disappearance of routes as a result of the deregulation of buses, may lead some employers to consider providing women-only services. Such initiatives, particularly if backed and approved by the Government, would also encourage other employers, employees and trade unions operating in sectors where unsocial hours are already the norm to consider the desirability of women only transport.
New clause 6 provides the House with an opportunity to clarify the legal position with regard to such provision and to make explicit our commitment to all women whose freedom, mobility and access to all public and social activity, including paid employment, is limited and restricted by their real fear of harassment and assault in public places. We hope very much that new clause 6 will be supported by the Government and that it will be written into the Bill.
I now refer to the amendment grouped with the new clauses under consideration. I know that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mrs. Shields) will speak to amendment No. 8, with which the official Opposition wholeheartedly agree. It is an excellent amendment and we shall support it. It refers to the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act. In Committee the Minister quoted a letter from the director of the Federation of Bakers, who said that no short-term effect would arise from the repeal of the baking legislation. We want to know what the long-term effects for bakers of repealing the legislation would be. The Department of Employment should do some more work on the effects of the legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) referred to the bakers' petition containing more than 2,000 signatures against the repeal of the legislation. It will be presented to the Minister in due course. Today the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union issued a press release protesting against the Government's action which stated that
Sacrificing bakery workers' health, safety and social life for political dogma is no more than legalised thuggery by the Government.
Those might be strong words but the bakers feel strongly about this issue. We share their grievance that bakers' health is being sacrificed for the production of bread.
I hope that the Minister will consider amendment No. 8 sympathetically. Amendment No. 12 is consequential on new clause 4. Amendment No. 13 seeks to ensure that the provisions come in only 12 months after the Act comes into force. At present there is no time scale. Much more time is needed to research the effects of the legislation on the work force and the effects of repealing and removing all the protective legislation.
An interesting matter came to my notice only recently. This morning I was invited to, but could not attend, a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Women's Employment at the Department of Employment, chaired by the Under-Secretary of State. On the agenda of that meeting two draft leaflets about the Sex Discrimination Bill were under consideration. The Minister was seeking the views of the advisory committee on them. I was

interested and surprised to see that in the draft leaflets which will be produced later it is stated that the statutory restrictions on women's working hours will not come into force until 1988. We had not realised that. The United Kingdom's obligations under the European social charter provide the reason.
The British Government face a dilemma in that they wish to introduce legislation which will extend working hours for women as quickly as possible, but have discovered that they cannot introduce it until 1988, because as a signatory to the European social charter they must abide by its rules. It defeats me to envisage how the Government will extricate themselves from their obligations under the charter. I shall be interested to hear the Paymaster General's views on that matter.
The charter was signed in 1961 and came into force in 1965. Article 8 of the charter places an obligation on signatories to regulate the employment of women workers on night shifts in industrial employment, prohibits their employment in underground mining and as appropriate in all other work which is unsuitable for them by reason of its dangerous, unhealthy or arduous nature. That is a social goal or target and I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments on the Government's dilemma. Will the Minister withdraw this country from the charter? How will he reconcile the Government's proposals with the requirements of the charter?
8.15 pm
Our argument in amendment No. 13 is that, if that measure cannot be brought in until 1988, why not wait arid bring the whole thing in 12 months after the passage of the Act, which would he at approximately the same time? By that time there might have been a general election and a Labour Government. One of the Labour party's first measures would be to reinstitute proper protective legislation for men and women on a decent social basis. I invite my hon. Friends to support these two important new clauses 4 and 6 and the amendments which are linked with them.

Mrs. Elizabeth Shields: The alliance will support the Labour party if there is a Division on new clause 4. It is an important proposal having regard to the risks faced by many women in town and country, such as the difficulties of finding transport to and from their places of employment at unsocial hours in urban and especially rural areas at a time when many bus services—certainly in my area — on non-profitable routes are being withdrawn. That makes it more essential to ensure that facilities are made available.
I support the views already expressed on the problems associated with this matter, especially in connection with shift work. I wholly agree with the comments on safety made by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson). Women need more protection, especially at night. I also agree with the words in subsection (3) of new clause 4 which relate to consultation with the work force. Discussions are necessary before any substantial change in hours is introduced because of the practical implications that they have on the lives of men and women in work and on their families. A change in working hours of any substance will involve making new domestic arrangements and special arrangements for children, including those of pre-school age, and those in primary and secondary education. All hon. Members are aware of the desirability


of one parent being at home when children return from school. Alliance Members would not wish to encourage the destruction of family life in any way through this Bill.
The practical details contained in the proposal would be a considerable advantage in the implementation of the Act since they clearly delineate the relevant areas of anxiety for those affected by its terms. If the Government are unable to accept new clauses 4 and 6, our amendment No. 8 would at least allow further discussion with the relevant bodies. Amendment No. 8 seeks to delay the repeal of the Act for two years, at least as it affects the baking industry.
When the Committee discussed this aspect there were calls for further rounds of consultation between employers, the Equal Opportunities Commission and employees to establish whether a compromise could be reached. The Government argued that there had been sufficient time to reach a consensus. There is great strength of feeling in the baking industry and the amendment provides one further chance of consultation with the Equal Opportunities Commission and other interested bodies.

Mr. Weetch: I rise to speak briefly in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Richardson), who led for the Opposition. I shall confine my remarks to new clause 4, which raises the principle of the desirability of gradualness. Some of the Bill's provisions for deregulation will no doubt cause great damage. Consequently, new clause 4 is an exercise in damage limitation.
The Government have consulted, but have drawn partial conclusions from their consultations. They have adopted a laissez faire approach instead of regulation based on experience and social concern. The Government's deregulation amounts to the big bang for industrial protection. I believe that there should be a much more gradual and cautious approach. After all, we are talking about legislation that has been enacted over a long time and it is wrong to discard it almost overnight.
The Government have been partial. The Paymaster General has several times quoted the report of the Equal Opportunities Commission. That pointed towards deregulation, but on condition that it should be accompanied by a considered code of practice. The centrepiece of new clause 4 is the issuing codes of practice. A sudden jump into the dark would have unfortunate repercussions. It would be much better to have a series of safety valves. The new clause does not seek to proscribe the Minister's right to bring about change. We state merely that change should be brought about only after careful thought, and that every step should be taken to ensure that changes do not have any disadvantageous repercussions. The new clause seeks well thought out and tested legislative change rather than a doctrinaire leap.
Subsection (1) of new clause 4 talks about the "relevant enactments" and explains precisely what they are. However, the crux of the matter is contained in subsection (2), which mentions being subject to conditions. Those conditions relate to full consultation, childcare, mode of transporation, and so on. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking has already made most of the points that I intended to raise about transportation, but a man who

travels late at night on public transport or who has to hang about on a railway platform does not face the same dangers as a woman.
Indeed, I was surprised to read that on Second Reading the Paymaster General said:
No one has ever suggested in all the discussions that women, for some reason, are more susceptible than men to any adverse effects which might stem from night work or working long hours."—[Official Report, 22 May 1986; Vol. 98, c. 572.]
I suggest that those whom the Paymaster General consulted could not have thought about the issue or examined the statistics for attacks on women late at night. Indeed, they obviously did not examine the casual attitude of some members of the judiciary when the perpetrators of such attacks are brought before them.
We are talking about serious and practical matters. The new clause tries to put some of them right by instituting a framework of conditions in order to regulate and control the pace of change. The new clause represents a reasonable proposition. Indeed, I am glad that the Paymaster General is in the Chamber to hear the debate. I hope that he will consider our serious points as I, for one, will support this worthwhile new clause in the Lobby.

The Paymaster General and Minister for Employment (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch) for welcoming me to the debate and for echoing the words of the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson). I always enjoy appearing opposite the hon. Member for Barking and often listen to her when she speaks as Opposition spokesman on women's matters. But on this subject I do not expect to be in frequent disagreement with the hon. Members for Barking or Ipswich or, from what I know of her speeches, with the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mrs. Shields).
There is obviously widespread agreement in the House and in the country that we should pursue greater equality of opportunity for women in employment, and an improvement in the role of women in the world of work. It is thus surprising that we should oppose each other on a Bill whose object is to remove discriminatory provisions between the sexes and that brings us into line with the judgment of the European Court and with quite a bit of current best practice.
The position of women in work in Britain is steadily improving, although there is a good deal further to go. Far more women work in this country than ever before. More women participate in our labour market than in other Western European countries. Perhaps surprisingly some Western European countries have been cited today. Of the total adult population of working age, 65 per cent. are in work in Britain. That figure is exceeded by Denmark with 68 per cent., but we have a much better record than other Western European countries.
There has been a particularly rapid increase in the number of women in employment in recent years. I accept that the bulk of them are in part-time work, but many of them want that. However, the number of women in full-time work has also been increasing and there has been a very satisfactory increase in the number of women who are self-employed. There has been a quite dramatic increase in the number of self-employed people and one in four of them are women. More than 200,000 of them are self-employed but employ other people. Therefore, the situation is satisfactory, with the number of women in


work steadily increasing. Of course, we would like the status of women in work to improve along with the range of jobs that they do and the opportunities open to them.
Why do we disagree about new clauses 4 and 6 and the associated amendments? The hon. Member for Barking tried to head me off when it came to labouring this argument, but I believe that all the Opposition parties are defending obsolete legislation. I am reminded of our debates on the Wages Bill. I was continually astonished by the Labour party's determination to defend the old Truck Acts. The Labour party and the alliance are now defending legislative provisions, such as those contained in the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act, which are obsolete and which do not apply to the majority of those in work, or to the majority of those in the baking industry, because they seek exemption. Those great protections for women that are being defended by calls for a cautious repeal, codes of practice and the extension of the provisions to men as well as women. just do not apply to most women in work. Some 8 million are not covered by the restrictions on working hours and conditions. Only those working in factories, predominantly manufacturing, are covered. The restrictions do not cover office workers or nurses. I do not recall that anyone has previously sought to extend these outmoded restrictions to other areas of work. Therefore, I am surprised that suddenly, as we move in to repeal this after years of discussion, the issue has become a great banner and these discriminatory restrictions become a vital protection for women.
8.30 pm
I shall not bore the House by relating my experience of night work in the baking industry, which has prepared me for the hours of night work in the House of Commons. However, two thirds of those who work in the baking industry have sought exemption from the restrictions. The industry has been arranged by collective discussion and agreement. What is being defended tonight are the vestiges of near obsolete restrictions that affect women or people in the baking industry. We are repealing the restrictions, first, because they are discriminatory between the sexes, and, secondly, because the Government believe that obsolete regulations have an inhibiting effect on the employment of women and on the freedom of employers to manage their industries, such as in the baking industry. That has a tendency to reduce employment opportunities and the number of jobs available. That is the basis of our deregulatory approach.
I am fearful when I hear the hon. Member for Barking say that one of the priorities of a Labour Government will be to introduce a huge slab of legislation with new restrictions on hours and conditions, covering both men and women. I respect her intention. I know that, with her political opinions, she genuinely thinks that that is the sort of action that would improve working conditions and opportunities for women. She is mistaken. If a Labour Government were ever elected and sought to introduce complicated and burdensome legislation, it would reduce the amount of employment in the economy. If it is directed especially towards women, it would certainly adversely affect women's employment.
New clause 4 returns to an issue canvassed in another place. It seeks to resurrect parts of amendments that were first proposed in another place and removed in Committee. The new clause proposes the introduction of a code of practice and, over and above that, not to repeal

the night work restrictions but to extend them to cover men and women rather than only a minority of women. As we said in Committee, the Government see no merit in either of those proposals.
We do not think that repeal requires further safeguards because it is based on 10 years of discussion, going back to the EOC report mentioned by the hon. Member for Ipswich. I remind the House that the EOC's overall conclusion, on which it based its recommendations in the 1979 report, was that there was no case for retaining discriminatory provisions and that the legislation should be removed, except that where health and safety so demanded it should be replaced to apply equally to men and women. However, the Health and Safety Commission, which was consulted, both at the time and subsequently, never advanced the view that health and safety considerations showed a need to retain either the restrictions on women's hours in factories or the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954.
My general reply to all hon. Members who spoke about health and welfare being put at risk is that there is quite simply no conclusive evidence that long hours or night work have adverse effects on health for either men or women that would justify retaining rather than repealing the legislation. Indeed, the 1954 Act was not introduced for health and safety considerations.
I shall continue to oppose the requirement of the new clause that there should be codes of practice. The details outlined in the new clause to be included in codes of practice are matters that we think should be left as they are now. For the vast majority of employees, there is the usual process of discussion between what we hope are reasonable employers, employees and their representatives. These matters should be left to free collective arrangements. Indeed, suitable codes of practice already exist to cover matters where they might be thought necessary.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Why is the Minister always convinced that legislation is framed for reasonable employers? Surely we are discussing the unreasonable employers. What absolute assurance is there that existing codes of practice are anywhere near realistic? Women are not covered, but do not object because they are frightened of losing their already low-paid jobs.

Mr. Clarke: In the small number of cases involving unreasonable employers, the status of the codes of practice and their effect on such employers is difficult to assess. It is the very nature of such codes that they are consulted by reasonable people and give guidance to those engaged in negotiations. I am not sure that the hon. Member for Barking explained what difference she thought new codes would make for the sort of cases referred to by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
I remind the House that the Health and Safety Commission is empowered to issue codes of practice to provide practical guidance to employers on their general duties towards the health, welfare and safety of their employees. Throughout our debates we have been at pains to emphasise that the protections afforded by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 will continue to apply to all those affected by the repeals. Indeed, under section 6 of the Employment Protection Act 1975 ACAS is empowered to issue codes of practice containing practical guidance for the purpose of promoting the improvement


of industrial relations. The Secretary of State for Employment has similar power under section 3 of the Employment Act 1980.
Perhaps Opposition Members would look at paragraphs 51 to 70 of the 1972 industrial relations code of practice, which continues to be in force, which emphasise the need to make any changes in working arrangements in full consultation with the work force. Guidance on the provision of child care is given by the EOC's existing code of practice on the elimination of discrimination on the grounds of sex or marriage and the promotion of equality of opportunity in employment. That code also contains words of wisdom that employers can usefully bear in mind when considering such matters as the provision, wherever possible, of flexible working hours or a choice of shifts. Therefore, the new clause that the Opposition propose does not take the code any further forward than the present law, and is unnecessary.
New clause 6 deals with a serious matter — the particular problem of women using public transport—and seeks to amend the 1975 Act. The hon. Member for Ipswich supported the hon. Member for Barking in pressing for something to be done on this matter. The hon. Lady produced an interesting description and analysis of a survey on the problems that women undoubtedly face —especially in our larger cities when travelling at night, when they may face possible harassment or other difficulties.
New clause 6 aims at the possibility that, for example, the special provision—transport for women—is thought to be illegal. Until I read new clause 6, I thought that that was a novel idea. I am aware that various boroughs are experimenting with special transport for women. If this were a transport debate, no doubt I would argue about whether that was necessarily the right way to go in making transport safe for women. It is not necessarily the case that men should be barred from the vehicles in which they travel. Leaving that point on one side, I am not aware that anyone has tried to take up the question whether that is unlawful because it is sexually discriminatory.
As I understand it, new clause 6 is designed to ensure that, in constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), who tells me that such transport exists there, the risk of prosecution is avoided. That is best considered in another context, not in the context of this legislation. I am not satisfied that the provision is necessary.
The Equal Opportunities Commission is obliged under section 53 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to keep the working of the Act and the Equal Pay Act 1970 under review and to submit proposals for amending them to the Secretary of State. The Equal Opportunities Commission is reviewing the Acts and last week issued a consultative document inviting comments on a number of issues which it examines in the document. The EOC will take the comments into account when it prepares its proposals for submission to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Home Department and for Employment. I trust that the EOC will pay attention to what has been said in this debate. A more suitable time to address that matter might be when we consider possibly better vehicles for reforming the 1975 Act, the results of the survey and consultation and the EOC's proposals.
Amendment No. 8 seeks to retain the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954 for a minimum period of two years following Royal Assent. I cannot add a great deal to that. In my opening remarks I made it clear that the time had come for the legislation to go altogether. I cannot see what will emerge in the course of two years to change that proposition. The key point is that today some two thirds of the industry work hours are governed by collective agreements which gain exemption under the Act. The majority in the industry have voluntarily bailed out under this legislation. Baking, which has always provided a great deal of night work, will continue to do so. The baking industry is now ready to be put on a par with other industries in resolving matters for itself.
The same arguments apply to amendment No. 13 which proposes to delay the repeals of the hours of work controls for at least a year. I should like to explain a point raised by the hon. Member for Barking concerning how we will bring into operation the repeals of the hours of work controls. Clauses 7 and 8 and part III of the schedule will be brought into operation by a commencement order under clause 10(3). There is power to bring different provisions into force at different times.
As the hon. Member for Barking noted, our intention is to introduce the various repeals as soon as possible following Royal Assent, subject to the position under the European social charter. There will be some delays because, as usual, we are mindful of our legal obligations. Under article 8(4)(a) of the European social charter, the United Kingdom has undertaken to regulate the position of women on night work in industrial employment. But it is open to the United Kingdom to denounce article 8(4)(a), the next date for denunciation being February 1988, with notice required by 26 August 1987. Until such time as the article may be denounced the Government will adhere to the requirements of the European social charter by retaining the Hours of Employment (Conventions) Act 1936. That ensures compliance with the charter because it prohibits women from working at night in defiance of a period of 11 consecutive hours, including the hours between 10 pm and 5 am. There will be a deluge of paperwork seeking exemption from that Act until such time as it can finally be repealed.
We intend to withdraw from that part of the European social charter for the same reasons that we intend to carry the Bill and to repeal these two pieces of legislation. They are obsolete, out of date and have no relevance to modern working conditions. They do not apply to the majority of women or of baking workers. The time has come to bring the law up to date by carrying the Bill into effect as it stands.

Ms. Richardson: I shall not keep the House more than a few minutes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Thank you for nothing.
As the Paymaster General said, we have often faced each other, during his various jobs, across the Dispatch Box. I expected better of him. I am not being patronising in saying that. He painted a rosy picture of the lives that women lead. He talked about women doing much better, saying that they now have jobs, and so on. He said, in passing, that he wanted to improve the status of women. He failed to get down to the fact that the overwhelming majority of women are in low-paid, part-time, low-status jobs. There is an increasing number of such women as a


result of the Government's actions in the past seven years. Of course more women are in part-time jobs— they need the money. The Labour party is in the business of ensuring that a proper range of decent jobs with decent conditions are available to them so that they can look upon their work life with dignity, not one that they have to lead simply because they need the money. Our approach is entirely different. I am sure that we cannot have a meeting of minds on it.
The Paymaster General said that the Government want to sweep away the protective legislation because it does not apply any more to many people. We believe that it still applies to those exploited by exploitive employers. There are many of them around. Of course there have been exemptions but they have usually been negotiated between the unions and decent employers. That is okay, but we want to look after the residual number of women who will be exploited if this protective legislation is swept away. We need this legislation.
I said that a Labour Government would reintroduce protective legislation. Of course we shall not introduce exactly the same legislation as we had before. We shall look, in the light of the mess that the Government have left us, at what measures must he introduced to protect women and men from rack employers who are making their lives a misery in many respects.
The Paymaster General said that the matters in new clause 6 were best discussed elsewhere. That was yet another example of the fact that problems that face women, such as transport difficulties, are being thrown to some other Department simply because they happen to concern transport. The safety of women is a serious matter. I am sorry that the Paymaster General did not take it more seriously and did not see our attempt to set the safety of women in the context of this legislation.
We want to call a Division on new clause 4. I hope that all hon. Members will join me. We believe that the Government are outdated in their approach to women. It is time that this country had a Government who understand what women really want.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 169, Noes 218.

Division No. 291]
[8.48 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Buchan, Norman


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J.


Alton, David
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Anderson, Donald
Campbell, Ian


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Ashdown, Paddy
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Atkinson, N (Tottenham)
Clay, Robert


Barnett, Guy
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Barron, Kevin
Corbett, Robin


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beith, A. J.
Craigen, J. M.


Bell, Stuart
Crowther, Stan


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Blair, Anthony
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Boyes, Roland
Deakins, Eric


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dewar, Donald


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Dobson, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dormand, Jack


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Douglas, Dick


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Dubs, Alfred


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bruce, Malcolm
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.





Eadie, Alex
Mikardo, Ian


Eastham, Ken
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Ewing, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fatchett, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Faulds, Andrew
Nellist, David


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
O'Brien, William


Fields, T. (L 'pool Broad Gn)
O'Neill, Martin


Flannery, Martin
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Park, George


Foster, Derek
Parry, Robert


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Patchett, Terry


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Pavitt, Laurie


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Pendry, Tom


Godman, Dr Norman
Pike, Peter


Golding, Mrs Llin
Powell, Raymond (Ogrnore)


Gould, Bryan
Prescott, John


Gourlay, Harry
Radice, Giles


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Randall, Stuart


Harman, Ms Harriet
Redmond, Martin


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Richardson, Ms Jo


Heffer, Eric S.
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Robertson, George


Home Robertson, John
Rogers, Allan


Howells, Geraint
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Hoyle, Douglas
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Janner, Hon Greville
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


John, Brynmor
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Skinner, Dennis


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Kirkwood, Archy
Soley, Clive


Lamond, James
Spearing, Nigel


Leadbitter, Ted
Steel, Rt Hon David


Leighton, Ronald
Stott, Roger


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Strang, Gavin


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Livsey, Richard
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Loyden, Edward
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


McCartney, Hugh
Tinn, James


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Torney, Tom


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Wainwright, R.


McKelvey, William
Wallace, James


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Warden, Gareth (Gowerj


McNamara, Kevin
Wareing, Robert


McTaggart, Robert
Weetch, Ken


McWilliam, John
Welsh, Michael


Madden, Max
White, James


Marek, Dr John
Wigley, Dafydd


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Martin, Michael
Winnick, David


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Maxton, John



Maynard, Miss Joan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Meacher, Michael
Mr. Don Dixon and


Meadowcroft, Michael
Mr. Mark Fisher.


Michie, William



NOES


Amess, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Ancram, Michael
Bright, Graham


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Brown, M. (Brigg S Cl'thpos)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Browne, John


Batiste, Spencer
Bruinvels, Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Bevan, David Gilroy
Budgen, Nick


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Burt, Alistair


Blackburn, John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Chope, Christopher


Body, Sir Richard
Churchill, W. S.


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Ftushclif'e)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Clegg, Sir Walter


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Cockeram, Eric






Cope, John
Lilley, Peter


Cranborne, Viscount
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dicks, Terry
Lord, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Lyell, Nicholas


Dunn, Robert
McCrindle, Robert


Emery, Sir Peter
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Favell, Anthony
Macfarlane, Neil


Forman, Nigel
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maclean, David John


Forth, Eric
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Fox, Sir Marcus
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Franks, Cecil
Madel, David


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Major, John


Fry, Peter
Malins, Humfrey


Gale, Roger
Malone, Gerald


Galley, Roy
Marland, Paul


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mates, Michael


Gow, Ian
Mather, Carol


Gower, Sir Raymond
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Grant, Sir Anthony
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Greenway, Harry
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gregory, Conal
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Moate, Roger


Grist, Ian
Monro, Sir Hector


Ground, Patrick
Moynihan, Hon C.


Grylls, Michael
Neale, Gerrard


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Needham, Richard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nelson, Anthony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Michael


Hannam, John
Nicholls, Patrick


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Norris, Steven


Harris, David
Osborn, Sir John


Harvey, Robert
Ottaway, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hayes, J.
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Pawsey, James


Hayward, Robert
Pollock, Alexander


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Porter, Barry


Heddle, John
Portillo, Michael


Henderson, Barry
Powell, William (Corby)


Hickmet, Richard
Powley, John


Hicks, Robert
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hind, Kenneth
Price, Sir David


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Raffan, Keith


Hordern, Sir Peter
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Rathbone, Tim


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Renton, Tim


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Irving, Charles
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rost, Peter


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rowe, Andrew


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Ryder, Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Key, Robert
Sayeed, Jonathan


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Knowles, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knox, David
Shersby, Michael


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Silvester, Fred


Lang, Ian
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Latham, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lawrence, Ivan
Speed, Keith


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Speller, Tony


Lee, John (Pendle)
Spencer, Derek


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Squire, Robin


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lightbown, David
Stanley, Rt Hon John





Stern, Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Waddington, David


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Waller, Gary


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Warren, Kenneth


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Watson, John


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Watts, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Whitney, Raymond


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Wolfson, Mark


Thurnham, Peter
Woodcock, Michael


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Yeo, Tim


Tracey, Richard



Trippier, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Twinn, Dr Ian
Mr. Tony Durant and


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Mr. Francis Maude.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

PRIVATE HOUSEHOLDS AND SMALL UNDERTAKINGS AND PARTNERSHIPS

9 pm

Ms. Richardson: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 10, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment No. 1 seeks to delete subsection (2). We seek to remove the whole subsection, which deals with the exemption of employment in private households with regard to
the degree of physical or social contact
and "the knowledge of" intimate details and so on.
We had a long debate about that matter in Committee, and I am sorry that the present Minister was not there. However, I am sure that he will have read our interesting debate. Exemption of private household employment is brought within the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 by clause 1(1) of the Bill. Section 7 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 already provides for exemption where
the job needs to be held by a man to preserve decency or privacy.
Clause 1(2) of the Bill is redundant and the Government have failed to produce any arguments in its support which would not already be covered by section 7 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Lord Young's example, which was repeated by the Minister's predecessor in our deliberations in Committee, referred to the washing and ironing of underclothes and bedmaking, even if the employer is absent from the house at the time, and is unacceptable as a genuine occupational qualification for exemption from the Act. The former Minister's example of employing a babysitter previously unknown to the employer can surely be dealt with through rigorous scrutiny of references and is not a matter of the sex of the applicant. The way in which the Government have sought to bring the Sex Discrimination Act in regard to private households into line with other legislation is ludicrous.
Moreover, the type of services which babysitters and companions to elderly people would be expected to perform are satisfactorily covered by section 7(2) (b)(i) and (ii) and section 7(2)(e) of the Sex Discrimination Act and by clause 1(1) of this Bill. I apologise to hon. Members for mentioning so many subsections of measures with which they may not be as familiar as those of us who served on the Committee, but the Minister will understand and I am anxious not to spend too much time on this.
The introduction of the word "social", on which the Government are insisting, introduces a completely new category into the Sex Discrimination Act with regard to exemptions of the Act.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Lady recall that this amendment would have been passed in Committee with my support and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler) had it not been for the regrettable absence of one of her colleagues?

Ms. Richardson: With great respect, it is not like the hon. Lady to make such a cheap point.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: It is not. It is very important.

Ms. Richardson: It is an important point.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Clause 19.

Ms. Richardson: If the hon. Lady will allow me to speak, the hon. Member concerned had an urgent appointment outside. It is perfectly well known that from time to time in Committee hon. Members must be absent. It was unfortunate and we regret it but these things happen. It is no good the hon. Lady trying to take credit for the one and only time when she voted with us. If she voted with us more often, perhaps we would win more often.
Anyway, the word "social", if it is introduced into the Bill, will bring another loophole into an Act which has already proved to be too widely drawn in relation to the standards of the equal treatment directive of the EEC. The Government are in danger of merely complying with one ruling in order not to be found in non-compliance in future.
There was some merit in the Bill and we supported it when it was first introduced. The first two clauses represent the initial reason for the Bill's introduction. However, our support for the Bill has withered because of the other provisions which have been introduced. Our support for the matter of private households has withered because the Government do not seem to understand, or deliberately misunderstand, the intention of the equal treatment directive.
The Government have introduced the Bill in such a ridiculous form that it will have no value. I ask the Minister for the last time to reconsider and remove subsection (2). The amendment seeks to remove that subsection.

Mr. Lee: I have listened to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) this evening and I have read the record of the earlier discussions on this clause in Committee. I am somewhat exasperated by the attitude of Opposition Members to this clause. Until now, private households have been completely exempt from the employment provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and there is no evidence of widespread abuse. I thought that all of us here — and in Europe — were agreed that respect for private life is paramount. Yet consider the effect of the amendment. All employment in a private household would be open to both sexes unless it was subject to one of the exemptions currently listed in section 7(2) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. I accept that the hon. Member for Barking acknowledged that. Physical contact would be no reason for seeking an employee of a particular sex unless it involved decency or privacy; social contact would be no reason at all.
I apologise here for giving examples. However, what may be the feelings of an old lady who would be compelled to consider men as well as women when choosing a personal companion? Or consider another old lady. who, perhaps, has been proud to lead an independent life until stricken by the frailties of old age. According to the Opposition, not only must she now swallow her pride and admit to the person who cleans and washes for her that she now needs help—that must be hard enough for her—she must suffer the double indignity of admitting that equally to a man or a woman, knowing that such a person will inevitably learn about her problems. I am not talking about bank statements, to which reference was made in the earlier stages of the Bill. I am not talking about healthy, middle-aged people with a contemporary outlook. I am talking about physical problems like incontinence. I am talking about old people, possibly old fashioned people but nevertheless people who have a right to have their personal feelings respected in the privacy of their homes.
I find it surprising and perhaps incredible that Opposition Members seem prepared to go back to their constituents and tell them that they must ignore the sex of people performing these intimate tasks within their homes. In Committee, we referred to laundries, yet talk of laundries or pre-dinner drinks is an irrelevance, and I hope and believe that that can only be the result of misunderstanding. We are not prepared to allow the invasion of privacy that the amendments seek. I hope that on reflection the hon. Member for Barking will withdraw the amendment.

Ms. Richardson: I will not press the amendment to a Division because, in view of what has happened earlier this evening, it would be defeated. However, I remind the Minister that the EEC is unhappy about the matter and does not believe that the provision complies with the equal treatment directive.
The Minister exaggerates the problems which might face elderly people. We all understand the problems which face elderly people and we want to see that they are comfortable—I use the word "comfortable" deliberately — with the people in the house with them. The introduction of the word "social" will add endless complications which will mean that the genuine purpose of the clause will not be fulfilled. I know that my words are falling on deaf ears so I will not press the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6

Mr. Dixon: We support this amendment, which is basically in line with the Labour Party's amendment No. 11, which was unfortunately not selected. Clause 6 takes a significant step by repealing section 3 of the Equal Pay Act 1970. This means that without the amendment there will be no provision for any formal enforcement machinery. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) referred to this in Committee and said that, although we did not table amendments in Committee, we would raise the matter on Report, as we are now doing.
The Government's argument is that the provisions of clause 6 void discriminatory terms in collective agreements, and thus render the Central Arbitration Committee unnecessary because it cannot amend a term that is void. However, the Government have left no mechanism to enforce such agreements. Therefore, there is no authority to which an agreement that may be thought to contain a discriminatory term may be referred, and which can duly declare it void. It may also prove necessary to amend rather than to void an agreement to avoid uncertainty and confusion for both management and employees.
9.15 pm
The CAC is a specialised body with considerable expertise and it assists in the task of arbitration and law enforcement. It would therefore be more appropriate to extend its powers so that it could amend directly and indirectly discriminatory agreements and pay structures rather than to curtail those powers as this clause seeks to do.
Part of the amendment deals with industrial tribunals. A minimum programme of reform should be introduced to set up specialist tribunals to deal with sex and race discrimination only. Specialised training should be available for members of tribunals and that training should show them how to apply the legislation and how to administer the proceedings so that they can be as clear and informal as they are intended to be. Tribunals should also have powers to recommend the reinstatement of those who have lost their jobs and power to recommend compensation which markedly reflects the real financial losses of the claimant. They should also have powers to recommend a comprehensive course of action to eliminate the problems which led to the case.
The only proposal by the Government is to recommend the imposition of a £25 deposit on all applicants. Many of my hon. Friends spoke about that earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) spoke about the loss of earnings by a person who has to appear before a tribunal and also about applicants who have to pay transport charges. A tribunal does not always hear a case in the area where a person lives or works and such a person has to find a certain amount of money for travel.
The Minister has not accepted that it is a traumatic experience for a person to appear before a tribunal. Perhaps many hon. Members do not fully understand that such people are ordinary low-paid workers. To them an appearance at a tribunal is like standing before a court. It has a traumatic effect on them. The amendments should be accepted. Tribunals should be overhauled and our recommendations should be accepted by the Minister. We support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mrs. Shields) and propose to vote in favour of it.

Mr. Mikardo: I shall address myself briefly to a point that was made by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mrs Shields) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) — the operation and the competence of industrial tribunals. Over the years I have attended a good many tribunals, sometimes in cases involving members of my union and sometimes in cases involving constituents. Not surprisingly, tribunals vary a good deal in quality. Some of them are good but some of them seem to be lacking in competence and in an understanding of what they are doing.
One of the problems addressed by the hon. Member for Ryedale and by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow is that the chairmen of tribunals receive no training about what they are supposed to do. They are especially lacking in a consciousness of sex discrimination problems and, as we have heard, the problems confronting industrial tribunals are now much more the problems of women than they have been in the past.
The criteria by which members of tribunals are selected seem to be absolutely wrong. As far as I know, the last examination of the operation of tribunals and of their chairmen was made in 1983 by a group of lawyers. The


first thing they looked at was the form which had to be filled up by an aspirant chairman of a tribunal. In that form a person who sought to become a chairman had to give his qualifications. I do not know whether the form is still in use, three years later. Perhaps it has been changed. The Minister may tell us.
If it has not been changed, it is a very strange form. It does not ask the applicant to say whether he has any knowledge of industrial relations, or any experience in industrial relations. It does not ask him to say whether he has any knowledge of industrial law, or any experience in industrial law. It does not ask him to list his professional qualifications. However, it asks him to give a list of the military medals and honours he has received. If, therefore, one wants to be the chairman of an industrial tribunal, the principal criterion is that one should get oneself a row of gongs. Then it does not matter if one does not know about other matters.
This group of lawyers said that they had found that many chairmen have no experience of or even an interest in industrial relations. They quoted two newly appointed industrial tribunal chairmen, one of whom confessed that he had spent 30 years in divorce and property law and that he knew nothing about industrial relations law. He said, "I shall have to bone up on it." The other freely admitted and, indeed, seemed to be proud of the fact that in his whole life he had never met a trade union official.
We have referred to the problems faced by women who appear before industrial tribunals. The hon. Member for Ryedale mentioned sensitivity to sex discrimination matters in industrial tribunals. Only 7 per cent. of the chairmen of industrial tribunals are women. We are dealing with a sex discrimination Bill. One cannot have more sex discrimination than that. Is the Minister able to tell me that there are 13 men who are qualified to chair industrial tribunals for every woman who is qualified to chair an industrial tribunal? I am sure that he will not tell me that. If he did, nobody would believe him.
There is much weight in what has been said by the hon. Member for Ryedale and by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow. The Government should bone up on the qualifications that are required properly to run industrial tribunals and they should examine the ways in which their operations ought to be improved, because they are susceptible to a great deal of improvement.

Mr. Lee: I know that during earlier stages of this Bill there have been many interesting discussions about the need for the CAC to have responsibility for settling disputes which might arise where agreements are unlawfully discriminatory. Opposition Members, both in proposing and supporting this amendment, have repeated some of the arguments previously advanced.
The amendment we are considering of course goes further. It would apparently give power to consider agreements—I almost said to "police" agreements—not only to the CAC but also to industrial tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
The proposed amendment is so wide-ranging that it is imprecise— I must say defective. It does not say who can, or cannot, refer a dispute for a decision. It does not set any time limit on such referral and it does not say how it will he known which body is "appropriate", nor who will decide appeals against such decisions. It does not say what will happen if one party refers a dispute to the CAC while the other, simultaneously, has referred it to the EAT—

all this of course at possibly the same time as an individual employee has applied to a tribunal for a decision on her or his individual position. I do not, however, want to labour the technical defects in the amendment, since I consider there are major reasons why it should he rejected.
The procedure which the amendment seeks to introduce is unnecessary. I do not want to weary hon. Members by repeating arguments already well argued at earlier stages, but I fear I must do so in some measure.
Opposition Members are concerned about cases where one side or the other refuses to renegotiate an agreement. They have, as on earlier occasions, painted a sorry picture of industrial relations in this country, where rights of individuals are ignored and legislation blatantly disregarded. It is surely more likely that such a sad state of affairs should arise through ignorance or accident rather than by design, and I shall later describe the avenues through which help and advice can be obtained. But in what seems to me the unlikely event of either or both parties to an agreement refusing to change a term they know to be discriminatory, they will he faced, as my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) emphasised during ealier discussions, with the right of individuals to complain to a tribunal if they feel they are suffering discrimination.
Opposition Members have raised objections to this line of defence, but do they really wish to denigrate this fundamental principle of employment law, the right of individuals to seek personal redress and financial compensation where they have suffered because of a breach of legislation? People have had this right under sex discrimination legislation since 1975 and we do not therefore envisage a great increase in industrial tribunal complaints as a result of clause 6. But the fact remains that an intransigent employer is likely to be faced with complaints leading to compensation and almost certainly to costs being awarded against the firm for its cynical disregard of the law. An intransigent trades union could also be faced with tribunal proceedings for knowingly aiding an unlawful act.
The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mrs. Shields), the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and expecially the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) referred to the training of tribunal chairmen. I will study the points that have been made, especially the knowledgeable contribution from the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar. All industrial tribunal chairmen have legal qualifications and, in addition, it is planned that special seminars should take place on discrimination cases. Nevertheless, I will consider whether we are going as far as is appropriate in the circumstances, given the comments that have been made.
It seems to me that it would be a very unusual employer who would accept such costs and not insist on renegotiation of the discriminatory terms. Moreover, I am sure that the Equal Opportunities Commission would want to use its powers of persuasion or, failing that, its powers to conduct formal investigations to ensure that the situation was remedied.
Opposition Members have emphasised the difficulties parties will face in arriving at non-discriminatory terms. I think that they under-estimate the abilities and practical expertise of both employers and trade unions. However, if help is needed it is freely available from the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and the Equal Opportunities Commission. If the employer and the union


still cannot agree on the change, they can ask ACAS to appoint an independent arbitrator or, by mutual agreement, refer the matter to the Central Arbitration Committee. Nothing in this Bill prevents the CAC from continuing to provide its services where both parties are content for the agreement to be referred to it.
I hope that I have finally persuaded Opposition Members that the powers their many amendnents have sought to revive are unnecessary, unwieldy and undesirable. I hope, too, that they will agree to withdraw the amendment; otherwise, I must ask hon. Members to reject it.

Mrs. Shields: I am glad to know that there will be some sort of training for the chairmen of industrial tribunals and that the tribunals will be looked at even though learned members sit on them. The main aspect of the amendment is that it enshrines an important principle—the right of individuals who feel that they have been discriminated against to receive effective arbitration.
As I am not happy with the Government's response to the amendment, I intend to press it to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 162, Noes 214.

Division No. 292]
[9.28 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Douglas, Dick


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Dubs, Alfred


Alton, David
Duffy, A E P


Anderson, Donald
Eadie, Alex


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Eastham, Ken


Ashdown, Paddy
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Atkinson, N (Tottenham)
Ewing, Harry


Barnett, Guy
Fatchett, Derek


Barron, Kevin
Faulds, Andrew


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Field, Frank (Btrkenhead)


Beith, A J
Fields, T (L'pool Broad Gn)


Bell, Stuart
Fisher, Mark


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Flannery, Martin


Bidwell, Sydney
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Blair, Anthony
Foster, Derek


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Boyes, Roland
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mlme E)
Godman, Dr Norman


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, N. (N c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Gould, Bryan


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Gourlay, Harry


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Bruce, Malcolm
Harman, Ms Harriet


Buchan, Norman
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Callaghan, Rt Hon J
Heffer, Eric S


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Campbell, Ian
Home Robertson, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Howells, Geraint


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hoyle, Douglas


Clay, Robert
Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cook, Robin F (Livingston)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Craigen, J M.
Janner, Hon Greville


Crowther, Stan
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
John, Brynmor


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Kirkwood, Archy


Deakms, Eric
Lamond, James


Dewar, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted


Dixon, Donald
Leighton, Ronald


Dobson, Frank
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Dormand, Jack
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)





Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Robertson, George


Loyden, Edward
Rogers, Allan


McCartney, Hugh
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


McGuire, Michael
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Rowlands, Ted


McKelvey, William
Sheldon, Rt Hon R


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


McNamara, Kevin
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McTaggart, Robert
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


McWilliam, John
Short, Mrs R (Whampt'n NE)


Madden, Max
Silkin, Rt Hon J


Marek, Dr John
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, C (Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Martin, Michael
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Soley, Clive


Maxton, John
Spearing, Nigel


Maynard, Miss Joan
Steel, Rt Hon David


Meacher, Michael
Stott, Roger


Michie, William
Strang, Gavin


Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbrtde)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)
Tinn, James


Nellist, David
Torney, Tom


O'Brien, William
Wainwnght, R


O'Neill, Martin
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Park, George
Wareing, Robert


Parry, Robert
White, James


Patchett, Terry
Wigley, Dafydd


Pavitt, Laurie
Williams, Rt Hon A


Pendry, Tom
Winnick, David


Pike, Peter
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)



Prescott, John
Tellers for the Ayes


Randall, Stuart
Mr Richard Livsey and


Richardson, Ms Jo
Mr James Wallace


NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Forth, Eric


Amess, David
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Ancram, Michael
Fox, Sir Marcus


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Franks, Cecil


Batiste, Spencer
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bendall, Vivian
Fry, Peter


Bevan, David Gilroy
Galley, Roy


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Blackburn, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Blaker Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gow, Ian


Body, Sir Richard
Gower, Sir Raymond


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Grant, Sir Anthony


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gregory, Conal


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bright, Graham
Grist, Ian


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Ground, Patrick


Brown, M. (Bngg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Grylls, Michael


Browne, John
Hamilton, Hon A (Epsom)


Bruinvels, Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A
Hampson, Dr Keith


Budgen, Nick
Hannam, John


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harris, David


Cash, William
Harvey, Robert


Chope, Christopher
Haselhurst, Alan


Churchill, W S
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Clark, Sir W (Croydon S)
Hawksley, Warren


Clarke Rt Hon K (Rushcliffe)
Hayes, J.


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Cockeram, Eric
Hayward, Robert


Cope, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cranborne, Viscount
Heddle, John


Dicks, Terry
Henderson, Barry


Dorrell, Stephen
Hickmet, Richard


Dunn, Robert
Hicks, Robert


Durant, Tony
Hind, Kenneth


Emery, Sir Peter
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Favell, Anthony
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Forman, Nigel
Hordern, Sir Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)






Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Pollock, Alexander


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Porter, Barry


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Portillo, Michael


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Powell, William (Corby)


Irving, Charles
Powley, John


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Price, Sir David


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Raffan, Keith


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Rathbone, Tim


Key, Robert
Renton, Tim


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Knowles, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Knox, David
Rost, Peter


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Rowe, Andrew


Lang, Ian
Ryder, Richard


Latham, Michael
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lawler, Geoffrey
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb1)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shersby, Michael


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Silvester, Fred


Lightbown, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lilley, Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Speed, Keith


Lord, Michael
Speller, Tony


Lyell, Nicholas
Spencer, Derek


McCrindle, Robert
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Squire, Robin


Macfarlane, Neil
Stanbrook, Ivor


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Maclean, David John
Stern, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Madel, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Major, John
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Malins, Hurnfrey
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Malone, Gerald
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marland, Paul
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Mather, Carol
Thurnham, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Tracey, Richard


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Trippier, David


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Moate, Roger
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Monro, Sir Hector
Waddington, David


Moynihan, Hon C.
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Neale, Gerrard
Warren, Kenneth


Needham, Richard
Watson, John


Nelson, Anthony
Watts, John


Neubert, Michael
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Nicholls, Patrick
Whitney, Raymond


Norris, Steven
Wiggin, Jerry


Osborn, Sir John
Wolfson, Mark


Ottaway, Richard
Woodcock, Michael


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Yeo, Tim


Page, Richard (Herts SW)



Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Tellers for the Noes:


Pattie, Geoffrey
Mr. Francis Maude and


Pawsey, James
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.

Question accordingly negatived.

COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS AND RULES OF UNDERTAKINGS

Mrs. Shields: Mrs. Shields: I beg to move, amendment No. 4, in page 6, line 36 at end insert—
'(7B) Disputes under this section shall he referred for decision as appropriate to:

(a) the Central Arbitration Committee; or
(b) industrial tribunals; or
(c) the employment appeal tribunal, empowered to act as a court at first instance.'.

I understand that the Government plan to abolish the Central Arbitration Committee, which deals only with cases of direct discrimination. Our amendment seeks to give the CAC much wider powers to enable it to arbitrate effectively when collective agreements break down. If the


Government choose to abolish the CAC, there will he nowhere for women to seek arbitration other than the industrial tribunals, which provide inadequate facilities to deal with such problems. An example is the case of the some 2,000 people who work in canteens in the National Coal Board, who are presently taking their dispute to the industrial tribunals. As yet, only about 30 or 40 cases have been heard, making this both an expensive and time-consuming operation.
While it is unlikely that every case would need to be heard, it would be preferable for one body, such as the CAC, to address such cases collectively. There are also some 1,000 cases waiting to go before the industrial tribunal on work of equal value. Again, the CAC can deal with these cases more effectively.
In addition to the doubt about the ability of the industrial tribunals to cope adequately with such cases, the chairmen of the tribunals rarely have specialised knowledge about sex discrimination. We would prefer such chairmen to receive training so that they are equipped to deal with such case. At present, the CAC rarely sees cases of discrimination because, under its present powers, it is unable to arbitrate in cases of more subtle and indirect discrimination, and can do so only in cases of direct discrimination. This amendment seeks to give the CAC the wider powers and authority needed to address the far more numerous cases of indirect discrimination.
If the Government are determined to abolish the CAC, they must greatly increase the powers of the employment appeal tribunal so that it can be enabled to deal with cases of collective discrimination. We seek a system in which industrial tribunals may continue to deal with individual cases, but the CAC may have increased powers to address itself to the break-down of collective discrimination. The CAC has already had experience, over a period of several years, of dealing with collective agreements, and rather than expanding the employment appeal tribunal, it would be preferable for the CAC to have its powers enhanced.

Clause 7

REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS ON WORKING HOURS AND CONDITIONS OF WOMEN

Mrs. Clwyd: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 6, line 46, at end insert 'except section 125(1)(b)'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 6, in page 7, line 9, at end insert 'except section 86(c)'.

Mrs. Clwyd: The amendments exclude the repeal of the sections of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 and the Factories Act 1961, which specify that women shall not be employed for more than four and a half hours without an interval of at least half an hour for a meal or a rest. I cannot believe that the Government intend to persist with their petty and mean proposals. I cannot believe that any reasonable person would consider it unreasonable for someone to have a break of half an hour at the end of four and a half hours of work.
I have observed Conservative Members who have been in the Chamber this evening and only a few of them have managed to stay in their places for more than one hour without leaving for a break. I would hardly say that sitting on the Government Benches has meant very much effort for them. The people that I am talking about, however, put a great deal of effort into their work and reasonably expect to have a break after working for such a period.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) talked earlier this evening about research carried out by Labour Research into 92 firms, from which it was found that a substantial number of firms did not have any organised break for their workers. If the sections of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 and the Factories Act 1961 to which the amendments relate are repealed, I suspect that many more unscrupulous employers will expect their employees to continue to work unreasonable periods without a proper rest.
We have had gratuitous advice from Ministers on eating healthily. Surely it is important from the point of view of someone's health and welfare that he should have reasonable time allotted to him to take a rest break or a meal break at the end of a period of work. I cannot believe that the Minister will not agree that the amendments should be supported.
I had direct experience of an unscrupulous employer when I worked during a school holiday. Ministers are fond of talking about occasions when they worked in the baking industry, and perhaps they would like to hear about the time when I worked during a school holiday at Chester zoo. I was employed in a buttery, scraping butter extremely thinly on pieces of bread. I was also engaged in interminably cutting slices of ice cream because the school holiday was in the middle of a heat wave. After a week of working without a break from 9 o'clock until 5 o'clock in the afternoon, I asked the manageress of the department when we could expect a break. She said, "If you don't like it, leave."
9.45 pm
That was quite a long time ago, but obviously because of the present economic circumstances millions of people, for fear of losing their job, will not protest about poor working conditions. It is well documented that the health of those in the lower economic earning groups is worse than that of people in other economic earning groups. Surely it is important, for the health and welfare of those people, perhaps more than others because they are less able to protect themselves, that we in the House of Commons should ensure that there is protection for them. Civilised terms and conditions of employment should be laid down for all employees—not only women but men.
It is hypocritical for the Government to suggest that to carry out their commitment — I put a question mark over the word "commitment" — to promote equal opportunities in employment between men and women and to remove unnecessary and outdated legislation, none of which has been proved tonight to be outdated or unnecessary, the removal of burdens on employers and of restrictions in respect of work, rest and meal breaks is essential. What utter nonsense. The Government are trying to give some unscrupulous employers a licence to exploit their employees. Apparently, there will be no consultation with the people on the shop floor. Their protection rights are being thrown away. Employers will persuade workers on changes, and we know all about employers and their methods of persuasion.
Surely Parliament's job is to protect hours and conditions of work, or is this yet another example of the Government eroding rights that have been fiercely fought for by trade unions for over a century? I found it particularly ironic to listen to the Minister suggesting that the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act was trivial legislation. Workers fought for over 100 years to get it on the statute book. It was a previous more enlightened Conservative Government who eventually supported it, yet the present Government are expecting us to believe that there is no longer any point in that protection.
Compared with those in every other Western industrialised country, workers in this country are still having to fight fiercely for their welfare and rights. Tonight the Government are putting yet another nail in the coffin of the efforts that have been made over the years by people who have fought for those workers and their rights. We should be ashamed that it took more than 100 years to get the legislation on the statute book when in other countries such as Finland, Norway, Denmark and West Germany such legislation existed early in this century.
The Government say that things will be made more favourable for employers. They occasionally toss in a comment about how nice it will be for the workers. They are not even pretending that tonight because women will not be able to avoid the exploitation that will be enabled if the legislation is passed unamended. Their collective bargaining strengths are likely to be weak, when families are dependent on their income. Too little consideration has been given to the knock-on effect of the repeals on families.
It is unclear what effect the removal of restrictions on women's hours will have on arrangements for the whole work force in respect of meals, rest breaks and rest days. Arguably men as well as women have benefited from the so-called restrictive legislation in the past, in that employers who have been obliged to accept statutory restrictions for women have found it simplest to allow them for men too, although men have no statutory right to meal breaks or rest days.
We should like this legislation to be extended to men. If the Government do not support our amendments, it will be a step back into the dark ages and will show Britain to be far behind other European countries in welfare rights and the protection of workers.

Mr. Lee: I say with tongue in cheek that I am pleased that the Opposition have accepted, albeit reluctantly, that

it is no longer necessary to retain statutory restrictions on the total hours women may work either each day or during a week. That will enable women to participate in overtime working if they wish and to be generally more flexible on overtime if that is what they and their employers want.
I am genuinely puzzled as to why the Opposition do not extend the same logic to the restrictions governing spells of work and rest intervals. The Government are not saying that women ought to be forced to work much longer spells against their wills. In very few circumstances would it be sensible for the employer to ask them to work longer spells and for the women to agree to that. I mention the example of Chester zoo used by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd).
Why should women not be capable of arranging their rest breaks and their total hours without the clumsy intervention of the law? The reasoning seems especially strange given that many women do not rely on statutory intervention to regulate meal and rest intervals in other sectors of the economy apart from mines, quarries and factories.
When Lord Wedderburn introduced similar amendments in the other place, he asked what was wrong with legislation in relation to spells of work. The answer is that we simply do not believe it to be necessary. Such matters are more effectively organised by individual or collective agreement when the circumstances and needs of the employees and employer can be taken into account. There is no justification for such restrictions remaining only for women working in mines, quarries and factories. Such restrictions are discriminatory and, where women must take compulsory meal breaks for which they are not paid, they can be disadvantageous.
The available evidence on health and safety is inconclusive. Dr. Harrington said in a summary of his review that fatigue has an objective concept, and was of dubious long-term significance to health. He also said that fatigue leading to increased errors and diminished performance could be offset by improved motivation and the appropriate use of work breaks. That is not to say that the breaks need to he inflexibly laid down by statute. Operational demands often require more adaptable arrangements than the existing legal provisions allow for. Furthermore, the better conditions prevail in our factories compared to the era when the legislation was first introduced, and that may, as the Equal Opportunities Commission noted in paragraph 381 of its 1979 report, obviate the need for formal meal breaks. Operatives may be content to stay at or near their work stations for longer periods if this meets the needs of the process.
The argument has been put that just because statutory rest intervals are not appropriate elsewhere it does not mean that they are inappropriate for mines, quarries and factories. But equally no convincing argument has been made as to why mines, quarries and factories should be a special case. Why should discriminatory restrictions remain only for women in those sectors? We are convinced that it is totally anachronistic and anomalous for these narrow restrictions to remain. Accordingly, I strongly urge that the amendment should be withdrawn.

Mrs. Clwyd: The Minister's response does not surprise me. He mentioned Dr. Harrington and was selective in the quotes that he took from Dr. Harrington's report. He did not mention that Dr. Harrington recognised evidence linking gastric and duodenal ulcers with shift work. He


believed that digestive disorders were one and a half to two times more severe in shift workers, and that their ulcer rate was twice that of day workers. He said:
There is reason to believe that nightshift work may well affect the digestive system.
The programme outlined by the Minister, which does not even allow for a statutory break, will no doubt lead to even more digestive problems. How can he expect us to believe that he is serious about health when he makes such ludicrous suggestions?
The Minister mentioned the Health and Safety Executive. Despite all the protestations of Conservative Members about the role that the executive will play, the truth is that under this Government the Health and Safety Executive has had its powers reduced every year since 1979. The Health and Safety inspectorate has also been reduced under this Government. Nowadays, some factories are not even visited once in 10 years. How can the Minister expect us to take his protestations seriously?
It is ludicrous to suggest that women will have some sort of collective bargaining power, because many of them are not in trade unions and have no bargaining muscle. In 1986, I would have expected the House to recognise the need to protect both male and female workers. Instead, the legislation is being repealed, and that will take us back 15 years.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 9

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT, REPEALS AND SAVING

Mr. Lee: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 8, line 16, leave out 'sections 4(1) and' and insert 'section'.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 10.

Mr. Lee: These are simple, technical amendments. They remove from the Bill the reference to section 4(1) of the Equal Pay Act. The whole of section 4 of the Equal Pay Act was repealed on 25 September 1986 by the Wages Act. Therefore, to retain the reference to section 4(1) in the Bill would serve no purpose and would be meaningless.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 10, in page 8, line 17, leave out 'they refer' and insert 'it refers'.— [Mr. Lee.]

Bill to be read the Third time tomorrow.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE AND ADMINISTRATION OF FUNDS BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 69 (Second Reading Committees),

That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, in respect of the Family Law Bill 'Lords] and the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill Lords], new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.—[Mr. Malone.]

PETITION

Salmon (Illegal Fishing)

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I beg to present a petition that was begun and promoted by the Welsh Salmon and Trout Angling Association. It is supported by clubs and anglers from Llandysul to London, from Bath to Bangor, from Merthyr to Manchester and from Dyfed to Dunoon. More than 18,600 signatures have been collected.
The petitioners applaud the introduction of the Salmon Bill but fear that, unless further measures are taken to control illegal fishing, salmon stocks in Welsh rivers will continue to decline.
The petition states:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that … the Standing Advisory Committee … be directed to examine and recommend … the necessity or otherwise of providing for the individual identification of salmon as an aid to combating illegal fishing.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Housing Defects (Cannock and Burntwood)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Malone.]

10 pm

Mr. Gerald Howarth: This is the first time I have had the privilege of raising an Adjournment debate. It is a pleasure to do so tonight. Perhaps the House will understand the defects in a particular house, Broadcasting house, but, as Broadcasting house is not in my constituency, I have no doubt that you, Mr. Speaker, would rule me out of order were I to make further references to it.
I am grateful for the opportunity to voice the concerns of an important group of constituents who have lived for the past three or four years under the cloud of ownership of defective homes. This debate concerns properties in the Cannock and Burntwood area which have been subject to defect. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle), who is renowned for his knowledge of housing matters and who also has constituents living within the Cannock Chase district council area in Rugeley who are affected by this problem. Nearly all the constituents I am talking about are beneficiaries of the Government's excellent right-to-buy policy. They are former tenants who have exercised their right to purchase their own homes. It is greatly to the Government's credit that, when it was realised that pre-cast reinforced concrete homes, which these people had purchased, were inherently defective, they acted swiftly to provide a remedy.
The essence of the problem for most of them was not that their homes were falling down but that one of the principal benefits of home ownership — the ability to mortgage one's home or to sell it and buy another—was at a stroke denied them as their properties became blighted. I believe that the Government therefore must be given credit for taking action in 1984 to bring legislation to the statute book to provide some remedy.
Much of the credit for implementing the Housing Defects Act 1984 and devising and revising the scheme which the Act brought into being must go to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who held the post of Under-Secretary of State with considerable distinction.
I approve entirely of the licensing concept which was designed to provide owners of reinstated homes with that peace of mind that they currently do not have. It was inevitable that the speed with which PRC Homes Ltd.—set up by the National House Building Council and by the Government — could move would be slower than everyone would have wished and certainly slower than the affected owners and the hon. Members who represent those owners would have wished.
I believe that many of the original problems have been ironed out. After some prompting by Ministers, who themselves have been prompted by right hon. and hon. Members, PRC Homes is now implementing a much quicker appraisal process to ensure that schemes are examined as quickly as possible. There are in my constituency four categories of pre-cast reinforced concrete houses: Cornish units, Wates homes, Smith

houses and Reema hollow panels. The last category has only recently been discovered, but the rest have caused anxiety and distress lasting many years.
I should like to emphasise the considerable anxiety caused to these people—not because their homes are falling down, but because many of them have invested a great deal of their own money in these properties and have brought them up to a very acceptable standard. Some of them are really beautiful homes, and there is nothing wrong with them, although in some cases signs of defects are emerging. For many owners the homes are adequate and they want to live in them.
The problem is that the owners are effectively trapped in those homes. One of the problems of a council house tenant is that he does not have the facility of moving as readily as a home-owner. The anxiety of not being able to enjoy the benefits of home ownership has caused great distress. It is not unreasonable that people should look to the Government, who implemented the Act, to do all in their power to accelerate the process of appraisal of the schemes submitted to PRC Homes, to ensure that there are realistic schemes available so that people can either continue to enjoy the homes in which they live or choose to move. For many of the people affected, the delay and the anxiety that that causes lead them to feel that they want only one option, which is repurchasing—effectively they want out.
I shall encapsulate the problems for each category of home. First, the Cornish units are more readily capable of repair, and that work is proceeding apace. However, Cannock Chase district council has acquired 10 houses on the ground of personal hardship and a further 40 are being acquired for which the cost of reinstatement, together with the cost of repair for the shale floors — which is not eligible for grant—exceed the value of the properties. Why are the shale foundations not eligible for assistance? Without the work being undertaken on the defective panels, the foundations would be adequate. I ask my hon. Friend seriously to consider including that essential repair work in the list of repairs eligible for grant under the scheme.
The second category is Wates homes, of which about 47 are in private ownership. After a long wait, there is now a real prospect of implementing a viable repair scheme. I understand that one of the leading consultants, Michael Dyson Associates, is hoping to undertake a pilot project in Tamworth with the assistance of Tarmac Construction. In the meantime, the owners are enduring a lengthy wait.
Further, despite the welcome increase in the maximum grant availability announced in August—an increase from £14,000 to £20,000—a problem arises because the quoted cost of repairs has also risen. In February owners were quoted £13,500 for repair, but that has risen in stages to between £17,000 and £19,000. The owners find that rise inexplicable. Indeed, such a figure is likely to make the value of the properties less than the cost of repair. The inevitable conclusion being drawn is that as soon as the Government raise the grant the builders will suddenly find that the cost of repairs has also risen. I cannot tell my hon. Friend where to find the solution. He has responded to pressure in the House to raise the maximum grant, but contractors have magically increased the cost of repairs to coincide with the grant. I hope that more people will come into the market, but my hon. Friend must realise that only a limited number are prepared to operate in it, despite the


enormous attractions that there will be to builders and developers who undertake such work in the private and public sectors.
The Wates homes in my constituency were all owned by the National Coal Board, now British Coal. It is disposing of the properties as quickly as possible, and they are being bought at defective value by people who are subdividing them and renting them out. The tenants often do not provide the type of atmosphere which home owners on the estates would like. Home owners may want to reinstate their homes, but find that the former NCB property next door is no longer eligible for grant and that the new owners are interested only in packing in as many tenants as possible. As a result, the standard of the area is declining. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to say something about British Coal's future policy in that respect.
The problems concerning Smith homes are intractable. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd), who is in her place, the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) have fought valiantly for the interests of this group of people. I have about 14 such owner-occupiers in my constituency. They are fed up to the back teeth with having to wait for an approved scheme. I understand that a south Wales company may have a suitable scheme. The likely cost is £24,000, however, which means that repurchase is the only option. As the scheme involves the virtual demolition of the property—it leaves the roof—and as we are a long way from achieving an approved scheme of reinstatement, which could itself exclude many detached properties, I should have thought that the solution was to give all owners the option of repurchase. The 14 properties in my constituency are detached.

Miss Betty Boothroyd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He told me earlier that he would be happy if I intervened at this point. He said that many people in Smith houses would be happy if resources were made available to local authorities so that there could be repurchase. Would he press the Government on this matter? He knows that the resources are available. If they were made available to local authorities, they might repurchase Smith houses.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Lady pre-empts my speech, but I am grateful to her.
To allow my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) to speak, I shall say nothing about Reema homes, but just invite my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on them. They are less of a problem than others.
I fully understand why the Government allocated administration of the scheme to local authorities. They undoubtedly have the necessary organisation and often owned the properties. Indeed, they were often responsible for building the defective properties, so it is no hardship for them to carry the can now. The Cornish units and Wates homes in Cannock were owned by the National Coal Board, and I understand Cannock Chase district council's slight resentment at picking up the cost of reinstating or repurchasing those homes.
It is true that the Government allocated £814,000 in the 1986–87 housing improvement allocation for Cannock Chase district council specifically to deal with its

obligations under the Housing Defects Act 1984. The council is grateful for that, but its problem is that this is a demand-led area of the budget. It is a fairly reasonable Labour authority and is not like some that have been mentioned in the House. It seeks an assurance that if it is to meet its obligations under the Act—it cannot tell when they will be foisted upon it—it will not be subject to an attack by the district auditor.

Mr. John Heddle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene quickly. As he rightly said, we share the same local authority. Earlier he said that a number of people in his constituency and mine, which is adjacent, were encouraged by the Housing Act 1980 to exercise their right to buy. They did so and now find that they have an asset in which they are trapped. The properties are effectively blighted, not because the houses are inherently defective, but because they are PRC homes. They are inevitably tarred with the same brush as Airey homes—I was associated with a similar Adjournment debate in 1982—and the owners cannot sell them.
When my hon. Friend the Minister replies, will he consider the possibility of imposing on local authorities the duty to relieve people who find themselves trapped in homes which they cannot sell? Will he direct the attention of local authorities, such as the Cannock Chase district council, to cases such as that of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. D. H. Knowles of 14 Larch Road, on the Springfield estate in Rugeley? They bought, but now cannot sell and are suffering considerable hardship because they cannot buy the property into which they wish to move. Their home, although not inherently defective, is blighted. They find themselves trapped. The Cannock Chase district council, benevolent though it is and moderate though it is in Labour party terms, finds itself unable, because my constituents have exercised the right to buy, to extend the arm of compassion in cases of hardship. When my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the excellently presented Adjournment debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), will he consider this one basic defect of definition in the Housing Defects Act?

Mr. Howarth: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend.
People who need to move face a problem and Cannock Chase district council is being slow in coming forward, partly because one of our Ministers asked it to behave in that way. Now we must ensure that the council can meet the obligations without incurring wild expenditure. I suggest that we should perhaps allow capital receipts to be released for this one specific budget area and that one alone.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Richard Tracey): Perhaps I could begin on two personal notes. First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) on a success which he has achieved outside the House. I am sure that it will have been welcomed by all hon. Members. Secondly, I thank my hon. Friend for the warm tribute which he paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) who was previously Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment and whose work we all recognise as being of a high quality. Many of us have good cause to thank him for what he has done for us in many ways.
I certainly wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood for giving us this opportunity to discuss, albeit briefly, this important legislation. The interest in this matter has been shown by the interventions of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) who, unfortunately, is no longer present. We are all grateful for the hon. Lady's intervention.
We agree that this was an important piece of legislation, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) and I first knew it as the Housing Defects Act 1984. It has now been consolidated into part XVI of the Housing Act 1985, but the substance of the Act remains unaltered by the consolidation.
My hon. Friend has, quite understandably, identified some problems with the operation of the Act. I should like to look briefly at the history of this measure because it is important to remind ourselves of why we put it on the statute book and, indeed, of the progress we are now making, nationally, with its implementation.
The story really began in 1983 when our Building Research Establishment discovered serious, and quite unexpected, problems with Airey houses. The BRE then discovered that all prefabricated reinforced concrete houses designed before 1960 faced the same type of defect. These properties therefore became unmortgageable and the owners, who had bought in good faith and with no knowledge of inherent defects, were left in a very difficult position. The Government could simply have rested on the old "caveat emptor" principle but we did not. We recognised that the Government had a responsibility to owners who had bought in good faith from the public sector and now found themselves in an impossible position.
So the Government introduced first the "Voluntary Airey Scheme" — an extension of the repairs grant system to Airey houses—and then, when the full extent of the problem became clear, the Housing Defects Act 1984. As my hon. Friend knows, this entitles eligible owners of designated properties either to a 90 per cent. local authority grant to reinstate the property, or 100 per cent. in financial hardship cases, or, if repair is not possible or cost effective, to repurchase at 95 per cent. of defect-free value. Owners can also apply for repurchase on hardship grounds. The authority has to decide the form of assistance—whether grant or repurchase—in each case.
That Act received all party support in the House. It is a generous measure which has given security to thousands of home owners who would otherwise be in desperate straits. It is important to remember this when we look at some of the difficulties—which I do not deny exist. I stress that the owners will get assistance, within the 10-year period laid down in the designations. That fact in itself is an enormous step forward for them, and we must not lose sight of it. The Government did the right thing in passing this measure and now we must all do all we can to help it work smoothly.
A further big step forward is the progress that we are now making on approved repair methods. When the Act came into operation on 1 December 1984 there were none. Now, thanks especially to the builders and designers and, of course, to the National House Building Council and its subsidiary PRC Homes Ltd., there are 21, covering seven

of the designated PRC types — Airey, Cornish unit, Unity, Wates, Woolaway, Orlit and Parkinson. Some 31 more schemes are in the pipeline, including one for Reema and one for the Smith houses type, which the Government designated earlier this year. These approved methods cover two thirds of all designated houses in private ownership—and progress is continuing. My hon. Friend will also recall that we have just made, on 25 September, adjustments to the grant expenditure limits for those types, like Wates, which have been shown to cost more to repair than the original across-the-board figure of £14,000. I know that my hon. Friend is concerned that builders should not "bid up" to the new limits, and we are monitoring the position carefully. Obviously, competition on repair methods will help.
This demonstrates that the Government are committed to making the Act work —and it is now getting under way. Up to 31 March 1986, there had been over 2,000 repurchases, and only 200 or so grants. For the current year local authorities estimate that they will be able to give well over 2,000 grants, so a lot more repairs are now getting under way. In other words, what we all wanted to see—Government, local authorities and owners—repairs rather than repurchase, is beginning to happen, and we can rightly be pleased at that. I fully accept that we must not be complacent, especially about the position of those authorities, and their owners, who face particular pressures.

Dr. John G. Blackburn: In my constituency, there are over 300 of these properties, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be encouraged to know that the local authority has commenced the repurchase of properties of those who can prove that they are in financial difficulties.

Mr. Tracey: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, and I congratulate the local authority.
I know that resources are an issue that concerns my hon. Friend, and indeed other hon. Members. The first point on which we can all agree is that the precise pattern of expenditure under the Act is not easy to predict. Owners have 10 years in which to seek assistance; and, even if large numbers apply, the cases, quite understandably, do not necessarily crystallise for quite some time. That is why my Department encourages authorities to talk with their owners to try to reach a good understanding on a likely timetable. Owners' needs, especially in hardship cases, the existence of repair methods—and possible new ones—and overall resource availability all come into this. With good will all round, sensible programmes are attainable, and beneficial both to the authority and the owners.
Of course, certain authorities face particularly heavy obligations. We do all that we can, within the housing investment programme system, to allocate resources sensibly, reflecting those needs and others. We have been flexible beyond that. Last year, certain authorities came to us and said that they simply could not cope within existing allocations. We announced, in circular 9/85, that we would provide extra resources to authorities definitely in that position. We made available an extra £37 million. In the event, for the reasons that I have described, only some £5 million was taken up. For the current year we took £30 million out of the normal generalised needs index and distributed it directly to the regional level to reflect the problems of particularly hard-hit authorities. The West


Midlands received £2 million on that basis— plus the money distributed in the normal way through HIP, where we also revised the GNI indicators, to focus better on HDA obligations. We are continuing to monitor the position—the present HIP round of meetings has given my Department's regional offices a valuable update. We shall continue to do all we can.
My hon. Friend made other specific points. We have received and studied his recent letters. First is the National Coal Board estate. I understand the concerns felt by many hon. Gentlemen about this. Local authorities are responsible under the Act for providing assistance on privately owned properties. I know that this has caused concern because authorities often had no previous involvement in those estates. But a local authority has responsibility for all the residents in its area. It is not unreasonable, therefore, for the authority to be responsible for administering the housing defects scheme in the same spirit as it handles the normal improvement and repairs grants.
The Government have a part to play. That is why the Exchequer makes an increased financial contribution in these cases — 100 per cent. of the difference between price paid and defective value, rather than the usual 75 per cent. The rest of the cost will of course attract housing subsidy, in the normal way, if the authority is still eligible for that.
As my hon. Friend has said, there are some difficulties for owners of Cornish unit properties situated on shale foundations. The shale can cost £2,000 to £3,000 to repair and is not normally eligible for grant under the housing defects legislation. This is because it is a defect quite separate from the designated one of inadequate protection of the steel reinforcement in the concrete panels. I know that certain authorities have considered giving improvement grants towards these costs. Obviously, it will be for each authority to make up its mind about giving such grants for this work. There is an alternative, if the owner's circumstances warrant it, of 100 per cent. grant assistance towards eligible works under the housing defects legislation. That could go some way towards evening up the position.
Because of the brief nature of the debate and the excellent contributions from my hon. Friends, time is limited. I hope that what I have said has been helpful. I am prepared to reply further by way of letter to any points that I have not answered. On the matter of resources mentioned by my hon. Friend—
The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.